BX 1751 
,M55 

Copy 1 



«L . <<r»Cc 

^ •'«*■< « 
«C jig «^ 



^tecejLCCCS c * <g 
«£<5* <jc « c C ft « 5 

. < « <s< < <:< c 



F: eocene <r< ' 49 



<< ccc 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. II 



f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'f 



< c 
c c 




c c!c«, ccc<<: 

. cx#f «ccrc 

c <rcrcc 

t / <Ct| c<ccc 

< U fa 4f5e <r C C 



«5f«: c C <VaVcV c < 
ccrcc fCaccO<r « 

ac. tr c c «r<e<~ <i «k 

ifCc^ <; ( c c « 



THE DESTINY OF MAN 



PROVED FROM REASON: 



AND THE 



Infallibility of the Catholic Church 



PROVED FROM REASON AND HISTORY. 



11Y 



REV. L. I. MILLER, 

OF THE SEMINARY OF OUR LADY OF ANGELS, SUSPENSION BRIDGE. N. Y. 



WILLIAM POOL, PR IN 

NIAGARA FALLS GAZETTE PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT, 




1877. 



PREFACE. 



Without doubt the reader, seeing this little work, will 
imagine that it is impossible to prove the infallible authority 
of the church within such a narrow scope; this would be true 
if the analytical method were adopted. To analyze the doc- 
trines of the church separately would swell a work to an 
enormous size. We have any number of such works; but 
they are read by the few. People in general do not like to 
read voluminous works; besides an analytical work would 
incur great expense, and. consequently, would not find many 
readers. I have, therefore, used the synthetic method, as 
far as the subject would permit. In order to place the doc- 
trine of the infallible authority of the church in a proper 
light it is necessary to take a view of the destiny of man, of 
the simplicity and immortality of the soul; also of the end for 
which God created him. These subjects are more or less 
metaphysical; hence they require close and abstract reason- 
ing, which may not perhaps recommend itself to the taste of 
the reader: but no other method remains to present such 
truths clearly to the mind. The chapter against the Material- 
ists is, moreover, very short. I have simply intended to 
show a few of their principles,, and the absurd consequences 
which flow from them. This, at least, should interest those 
who are not acquainted with the teachings of Pantheism. 
The doctrine of the immateriality of the soul and of free-will 
should, in m\ opinion, awake deep interest, because many 
are found, who deny the former, while others will not admit 
the latter. These are, then, not abstract errors, but errors 
maintained and defended by many men of our age. I had to 



PREFACE. 



give a brief refutation of such before I could enter on the 
subject. The immortality of the soul, the free-will of man 
and the eternally happy end for which God created him, form 
the basis on which I had to build my arguments. After re- 
futing the above mentioned errors, I showed that the means 
for arriving at the truths of supernatural revelation can 
neither be the Bible nor human reason. This naturally leads 
us to inquire whether God established a supreme and visible 
authority to govern and teach His church, and whether that 
supreme authority, in its official capacity, or ex cathedra, is 
infallible in teaching faith and morals. But before we come 
to consider this, it must be shown that Christ was on earth 
and founded a church, and that He is God as well as man ; 
then we must have a clear conception of the essential ele- 
ments of society in general. It is impossible to have a 
distinct idea of the church founded by Christ unless we under- 
stand of what elements it is composed. We must, then , 
consider the two main elements, namely, the divine and 
human, and see how they are connected; then the other 
elements, namely, unity, visibility and supreme authority. 
All these form the data from which the infallibility of her 
supreme authority is shown. It is true that my little treat- 
ise is very imperfectly sketched; but I have found no work 
which follows the plan I have adopted. 1 have written in 
the spirit of truth, solely and simply for the benefit of many 
who have very indistinct ideas with regard to the super, 
natural truths necessary to be known, in order that man may 
gain his end—eternal happiness in the next life. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

PAGE. 

THE DESTINY OF MAX. 9 

CHAPTER II. 

MAN WAS CREATED BY GOD, AND IS REALLY DISTINCT 

FROM HIM, - - - - 13 

CHAPTER in. 

THE SIMPLICITY AND IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, - 18 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE FREE WILL OF MAN, - - -25 

CHAPTER V. 

GOD CREATED MAN FOR AN END, - 30 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE MEANS TO GAIN A HAPPY END. C8 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE BIBLE CANNOT BE THE WITNESS OF DIVINE AND 

SUPERNATURAL REVELATION. - * 43 



VI. CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

PAGZ. 

HUMAN REASON CANNOT BE THE WITNESS OF DIVINE 

AND SUPERNATURAL REVELATION, - - 54 

CHAPTER IX. 

CHRIST WAS ON EARTH AND FOUNDED A CHURCH, - tS 

CHAPTER X. 

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, - - P,4 

CHAPTER XL 

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST— HIS MIRACLES, - 70 

CHAPTER XII. 

SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN MIND, - - 82 

CHAPTER XIII. 

THE DIVINE AND HUMAN ELEMENTS IN THE CHURCH, - 90 

CHAPTER XIV. 

THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, 97 

CHAPTER XV. 

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, - - - 107 

CHAPTER XVI. 

THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, - 111 

CHAPTER XVII. 

THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH— ST. PETER 

AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THE ROMAN CHURCH, - 119 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE EXERCISE OF THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE 

CHURCH, - - - 129 



CONTENTS. Vii. 

CHAPTER XIX. 

PAGE. 

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF 

THE CHURCH, - 139 

CHAPTER XX. 

THE INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. - - 146 

CHAPTER XXI. 

LIBERIUS. - - - - jffl 

CHAPTER XXII. 

HONORIUS. - - - - 174 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

THOSE WHO DIE IN GOD'S DISFAVOR, WILL SUFFER 

ETERNAL TORMENTS. - - 199 



ERR A TA. 



page line page 

12, 2 After proldbete read minus. 150, 

15, 19 After effect read cause. 155, 

25, 4 For cactwne read coactione. 161, 

48, 1 Read Cerintians. 161, 

58, 13 Afteri^read ?/. 165, 

72, 7 Instead of divine read define, 166, 

74, 7 For Ireacus read Ircnceus. 169, 

143, 22 Read ecclesia. 172, 

149, 11 For ^4 re w<? read Jrto*. 177, 



line 

8 Read Be Controversiis. 

5 Read ^rtes, 

6 Read simplicius. 
2 Read apvd. 

16 Read tieleuceia. 
13 Read Seleuceia . 

17 Read Chronicles. 
12 Read Fortunatus. 
24 Read Vigilius. 



Printer's Note.— The limited time given the printer required haste, and 
gave the author no opportunity for the correction of errors in the manu- 
script and such others as escaped the notice of the proof-reader. Some of 
the most important of these errors are noted above. 



THE DESTINY OF MAN 

AXD THE 

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE DESTINT OF MAN. 

If we take a view of the creation, we behold an 
almost endless* variety of beings. On earth the waters 
rolling over the vast deep are restricted by limits 
assigned them by the Creator. " Thus far you shall go 
and no farther." Numberless animals, of every descrip- 
tion, inhabit the immense ocean. The earth is filled 
with a variety of animals of every species. If we 
gaze on the firmament, we see it studded with num- 
berless stars, whose brilliancy excites our admiration ; 
immense planets are constantly moving through the 
wide field of space. Ever)' object in creation proclaims 
the power, the immensity and -the goodness of the 
Omnipotent Architect. All these beings, which we 
behold, throughout the material world, are not 
endowed with the noble faculties of intellect, memory 
and will. Man having received these sublime faculties 
from his Creator is thereby, at once, elevated above 
the whole material creation. He masters, by his 
intellect, the most difficult and abstruse sciences ; on 
its pinic he soars even to the very heavens, numer- 



10 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



ates the stars, calculates the motions of the planets 
and unfolds the secrets of the firmament. The discov- 
eries and progress in the several sciences and the 
variety of the different inventions proclaim the activity 
and sublime superiority of the human intellect. 

It is moreover a fact, known by observation and 
experience, that man cannot obtain perfect happiness 
in this life : the heart is continually restless, and seeks 
after happiness ; when it has gained the object of its 
desires, it seeks after something else. St. Augustin, 
on whom the world had smiled and had lavished 
her choicest gifts, found no happiness ; when he had 
discovered what he thought would satisfy his heart, 
he found it still void. It was only after he had fixed 
his soul on the Eternal Good, that he fcmnd rest ; and 
he then exclaimed : " O God ! Thou didst create our 
hearts for thyself, and they cannot rest until they 
rest in Thee." The idea that happiness ceases with life 
is, indeed, gloomy and full of misery. Men, at least 
in general, expect happiness beyond the grave. Man 
must then have a destiny assigned him by His Creator; 
and as God is the Infinite Good, the destiny of man 
must be a noble and glorious one. This idea is our 
only hope and encouragement amid the trials and 
sufferings of our mortal pilgrimage, for without this 
hope of a future life, and future happiness, life would 
be insupportable. We can hardly imagine that men 
could be found, who assign a destiny to man entirely 
unworthy of his dignity, were it not that their perni- 
cious doctrines are everywhere propagated. The 
pantheist says : " I am one of the innumerable man- 
ifestations of the . Universal Being (God). Like the 
bubble, which rises for an instant on the surface of the 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



11 



sea, I shall return to the common mass; to contribute 
to the life of the great whole ; by the energetic display 
of my faculties is my sole destiny and my whole duty 
during my ephemeral existence." The meterialist 
says : " I am matter ; a more perfect organization 
giving me, over other animals, the advantage of speech 
and thought. Eager for pleasure, an enemy of suffer- 
ing, my only duty is to procure the one and avoid the 
other till death comes to annihilate my being in the 
dust of the tomb." Atheism denies the existence of 
God; it attributes everything to nature or chance. It 
then subverts the whole moral order, for if all things 
necessarily depend on chance, if there is no Supreme 
Intelligence governing and directing all things to 
their end, then man can have no motive to practice 
virtue and to obey the order necessary to direct soci- 
ety to its end. It destroys conscience and the respon- 
sibility of living according to the dictates of justice ; 
for if there is no God, no hereafter, if man feels no 
responsibility for his acts, he will plunge into every 
crime; he will despoil his neighbor of his goods, and 
as far as he can, of his rights; then there exists no 
security among men, no hope and no consolation to 
soothe poor human nature amid its toils, sufferings 
and unjust oppression. Legitimate authority can not 
be maintained; for if he who exercises it feels no 
responsibility to a Supreme Being whom he ignores ; 
if he feels responsibility it is to the people whom 
he governs ; he is then merely prompted by motives 
of self-interest. If you remove that responsibility 
then no motives are left to govern his subjects 
according to the dictates of justice; then crime pre- 
vails and society is destroyed. The very pagan cries 



12 



THE DESTINY OF MA.N AND 



out against this in the language of the poet : " Di pro- 
hibite : Di talem averte casum f " O ye gods! ward off 
the threats ; ye gods avert such a calamity ! The pan- 
theist and the materialist have not, as yet, ^one so far ; 
but their doctrines lead to atheism ; it follows from 
their premises : hence pantheism and materialism lead 
men directly to atheism, and to all the evils which it 
produces. The cause of these errors has its origin in 
the mistaken conception of God and His attributes. 
God is the Supreme Eternal Being, existing by His 
own essence, infinitely perfect in all His attributes ; 
nothing can be thought of greater and more perfect 
than He. He is the absolute Supreme Being. 

Before He created, nothing existed except Himself. 
By His omnipotent power He created all things. One 
of God's attributes is free will ; the creation is, there- 
fore, a free act on the part of God. Had He not chosen 
to create, then nothing would exist except Himself. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



13 



CHAPTER II. 

MAN WAS CREATED BY GOD. AND IS REALLY DISTINCT FROM! 

HIM. 

It would be useless to prove that man has been 
created by God, and that he is really distinct from 
Him, as this truth is generally admitted ; but we can 
not easily refute pantheism and materialism unless it 
be shown that God is the Creator of mankind and of 
all things. It appears, indeed, wonderful that the 
human mind is carried so far in its infatuation as to 
advance such doctrines as would, in their consequen- 
ces, destroy the existence of God and subvert the 
whole moral order ; but such is the painful fact ; for 
we find these errors defended in elaborate treatises by 
men of intellect and learning. It is not necessary to 
enter extensively into this subject, for the absurdities 
of pantheism and materialism do not require a long 
refutation. No one can deny but that man exists; he 
is a being that depends upon other beings for his exist- 
ence; such beings are called contingent. His parents 
were the instruments of bringing him into existence; 
their existence depended on those who brought them 
forth; thus we have a series of beings, the one depend- 
ing on the other for its existence. Of this series one 
must have been first. Whatever exists must have a. 
cause why it exists; existence then is the effect of a 
cause, but it is self-evident that there can be no eifect 
without a cause; the cause then of contingent beings 



14: 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



must be a necessary cause, that is, a cause which exists 
by its nature and essence, which cause we call God. If 
a necessary being did not exist, then all beings would 
be contingent; but in that hypothesis, the supposition 
of their existence is absurd, because nothing can exist 
without a cause. Again, contingent beings either exist 
of themselves, or they have their existence from noth- 
ing, or from mere chance. They cannot exist of 
themselves, because they would then be prior to their 
own existence, and in that priority would bring them- 
selves into existence, or, in other words, they would 
be before they would be, and in their non-being they 
would bring themselves into being, which is most 
absurd. They cannot be produced by nothing, for 
nothing has no properties ; it is not and hence can not 
produce anything. If chance is the cause of contin- 
gent beings, it must be nothing or something; if 
nothing, it cannot be the cause of beings as we have 
seen ; if it is something it must be contingent or 
necessary ; if it is the contingent cause of the exist- 
ence of beings then again the question recurs ; what 
is the cause of that contingent being, chance ? There 
can be no effect without a cause; it follows then that 
the cause of contingent beings must be necessary; but 
the necessary cause is God: God, then, the cause of 
all causes, created man and all things. 

But it is asserted that there is an infinite series of 
beings; the one is produced by the other in an infinite 
succession; and that as man is a contingent being he 
is therefore from eternity and not produced. This idea 
is so absurd that it is scarcely necessary to refute it. 
The Infinite is a being without beginning or end, as 
the name imports: no limits can be prescribed to it, 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHTJKCH. 15 



nor can we form an adequate idea of it, because 
our intuition or perception is finite. can form 

an idea or have a perception of a series ; we can divide 
it by the imagination into parts; each part is finite; 
but all the finites cannot make the Infinite ; from 
finites we can only have finites. A series, then, evi- 
dently admits of increase or decrease ; but the series 
of the human race can be conceived to have a begin- 
ning; but no such a conception could be formed if it 
were infinite. It is still increasing, that is, new human 
beings are produced, which are added to it ; it has, 
therefore, an end to which the production is added, 
and is consequently finite. 

Again, if the human race be an infinite series, there 
is an infinite number of effects without a cause ; but 
human beings are a production ; if every one is pro- 
duced the whole collection must be produced ; then 
you have the whole production without a producer, 
or a series of effects without, which is absurd. We 
have seen that the infinite is without beginning or 
end; the finite is circumscribed by limits; between 
the Infinite and the finite there can be no medium. 
The difference between the Infinite and finite is found 
on the principle of contradiction ; the finite affirms 
limits; the Infinite denies them; there is no medium 
between yes and no. Limit is the negation of a being 
or of something real applied to a being; the limit of a 
line is the point which terminates it ; the limit of force 
is the point beyond which it does not extend. The 
idea of the Infinite, denying limit, denies a negation ; 
therefore, it is an affirmative idea ; the idea of the 
finite is negative, because it affirms a negation. The 
human series, as we have seen, is finite; the cause 



16 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



of its existence must then be the Infinite, who, in time, 
by His creative act, brought man into existence. 

The pantheist maintains, that there is only one sub- 
stance, which is God, that all other things are nothing 
else than the different modifications of God. Such a 
doctrine destroys the existence of God. A substance 
is that which exists by itself ; it does not need the aid 
of any other substance for its existence. There are 
two kinds of substances, the Absolute, which exists by 
its own nature and essence, which is God, and the 
finite. All finite substances are created ; their exist- 
ence depends on the creating act of the Absolute ; but 
the finite and the Absolute are not identical. Every 
substance has its own essence. The essence of a thing 
is that which makes it what it is, as, for instance, the 
essence of a man are his soul and body. There are as 
many substances as there are distinct essences. A man 
exists ; a stone exists ; but it is evident that what makes 
a man does not make a stone ; a man and a stone are 
then two distinct substances. If, according to the 
pantheist, there is only one substance, the Absolute or 
God, then, all things in the universe are so many mod- 
ifications of that substance; and they must adhere to 
it, as to their subject. But we find that many things 
are opposed to each other, and contradict each other ; 
for instance, at one and the same time one man is sick ; 
another is well ; some affirm, others deny that which 
is affirmed; some love a certain object, others hate and 
detest it ; some are learned, others ignorant, etc. 

If all these things were modifications of the Abso- 
lute substance, or of God, as the pantheist says, then 
at one and the same time God would be well and sick; 
He would hate and love the same object; He would 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



17 



affirm and deny the same thing; He would be ignorant 
and have perfect knowledge ; He would, then, contra- 
dict Himself; but that would destroy His existence. It 
can be easily shown that still more horrible and 
blasphemous consequences follow from the teaching 
of pantheism : such as making murder, hatred and 
every species of crime, which men commit, emanating 
from God. But pantheism, as already divested of its 
mantle, and appearing in its hideous form, presents a 
picture black enough. To gaze on such a portrait can 
not afford much pleasure to the reader; nevertheless, 
it is well to know the monster in order to avoid him. 
It was with repugnance that I took a very brief view 
of such a doctrine so impious, and from which so 
many blasphemies flow. But, as it sets itself up as a 
teacher of mankind, and professes to assign us a des- 
tiny, it was necessary to draw, at least, a small picture 
of its horrible deformity. Without doubt it has its 
origin in the abyss of the infernal regions. If it would 
present itself uumasked, it would be hated and shunned 
by all men. 



18 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER III. • 

THE SIMPLICITY AND IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

The soul is a substance. Every substance must 
have certain accidents or attributes adhering to it, 
without which it cannot exist. A circle must have 
roundness, a square four sides and four angles ; with- 
out such accidents a square and a circle cannot exist. 
As the soul is a substance, it must have accidents or 
attributes which flow from its essence ; the attributes 
are memory, will, and understanding ; without which 
it can as little exist as a circle without roundness, or 
a square without four sides and four angles. 

We know from the testimony of consciousness that 
the soul is an individual. It is I, myself, who think, 
judge, wish and desire, not a part of me ; for if my 
arm, or leg, be amputated my faculties of thinking, 
judging, wishing, etc., are not diminished: the think- 
ing, reasoning, judging • and washing faculties are not 
then a part of my body, but distinct from it. The 
principle of reasoning, wishing, etc., is always the 
same, because I am the same individual who formerly 
thought, wished, judged, and did many things; but 
my individuality is not my body, because my body 
wastes away every day ; the waste is supplied by daily 
nourishment. In a number of years nothing of this 
present body will remain. If the principle of thinking, 
reasoning and willing were a part of my body it would 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCII. 



19 



waste away with it, so that after a short time nothing 
of it would remain ; it is, therefore, not a part of my 
body, but a substance distinct from it. 

I feel various sensations within me; the sensations 
of seeing, hearing, feeling, touching, tasting and 
smelling; but the senses must be exercised in order 
that sensation may exist ; it is moreover requisite that 
the mind adverts to the operations of the senses. 
Sensation is an impression made on the mind; hence 
the operations of the senses during sleep or distrac- 
tion produce no sensation. Sensation is not composed 
of matter, for it cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or 
felt ; it is neither extended nor compressed, nor moved 
nor divided. The organs are entirely distinct, one 
from another, but, if sensations were the effect of 
the organs, they (sensations) would be distinct, one 
from another, and would not be identified with the 
same subject, the mind; but the mind experiences 
various sensations at the same time : it hears music, 
sees a pleasing object, considers and compares differ- 
ent ideas conveyed through the senses. Each sense 
has its proper functions: the eye does not see sound, 
nor does the ear hear color ; but the mind, at one and 
the same time, has the perception of hearing, seeing, 
smelling, tasting and touching; it compares the dif- 
ferent sensations, draws conclusions and directs its 
actions from them. All this cannot take place in a 
compound substance. If the soul or mind were a 
compound substance, as the materialists say, then 
thought would reside in the different parts of the 
subject thinking; it would, then, not be one, but man- 
ifold ; but it is certain that there cannot be more than 
one thought at the same time in the mind. Moreover, 



20 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



if one part of thought were in one part of the sub- 
ject thinking and another in another part, then it 
would have various parts, such as height, depth, 
length, etc.; it w^ould be round, square, or spherical, 
etc.; but thought can have no such qualities as is 
evident. 

It is further evident that the soul or mind is a sim- 
ple substance, and is not composed of parts ; because 
thought cannot reside in a compound substance. If 
the soul were a compound substance, then thought 
would be in all the parts, or only in one part ; it can- 
not be in all the parts of the subject thinking, because 
one part of thought would then be in one part of the 
subject thinking, and another in another part; but 
this cannot be, because you would then have as many 
parts of thought as there are parts in the subject 
thinking; but you can have only one thought in the 
mind at one and the same time. Moreover, if thought 
were in different parts of the subject thinking, it 
would have different forms such as squareness, round- 
ness, or some other figure ; but it can have no such 
modifications. Besides, each part of the subject think- 
ing would then only be conscious of that part think- 
ing corresponding to it and not of the other thinking 
parts; no part would then be conscious of the entire 
thought ; but the subject thinking is conscious of the 
entire thought undivided, as is evident from the testi- 
mony of consciousness. Thought cannot reside in 
one part of the subject thinking, because no reason 
can be assigned why it can be in one part and not in 
the other parts. The part of the subject thinking, in 
which thought resides is either simple or compound; 
if simple then it has no parts; then the. soul is a sim- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



21 



pie substance; if it is composed of parts then the 
preceding difficulties again present themselves which 
the materialist must solve. I will add one more proof 
taken from Martini: "Activity of a thinking being — 
First, I have the power of thinking, acting, judging, 
willing, moving my body, and that spontaneously, 
without any external impulse. Now, matter is pass- 
ive and incapable of spontaneous motion. Can 
organization bestow this faculty? Evidently not. 
Organization, being only a combination of parts 
among themselves, will never give the whole what is 
radically foreign to each part. Every particle of 
matter being to the faculty of acting as o to i; the 
combination of a hundred thousand particles will no 
more give the faculty of acting than the combination 
of a hundred thousand zeros will produce unity. 
Second, if the principle, which perceives, thinks, and 
wills in me, were the result of organization, my 
thoughts and volitions would be necessarily circum- 
scribed within the limits of my organs. It would be 
impossible for me to form within myself a representa- 
tion so vast as that of the earth and the heavens. 

How could the little image which the luminous rays 
paint upon the retina, acquire a development dispro- 
portioned to its extent ? Let -the materialist show us 
a picture larger than its canvass. ■ It would be impos- 
sible for me to conceive of those events, which have 
never reached my senses ; for example, to be present 
at a battle, which was fought two thousand years ago. 
How can the lines which I read, or the sound which 
I hear, produce upon my brains and heart the same 
impression as the sight of the combat. It would be 
impossible for me to exercise my thoughts upon the 



22 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



things that are not, and foresee the future ; still more 
impossible to rise to the considerations and senti- 
ments totally foreign to my organs ; such as abstract 
truths, the idea of good and evil, of justice and injus- 
tice, of the love of virtue, of the infinite, etc. 

Third, the thinking being reacts on itself. It not 
only thinks, but it is conscious that it thinks ; it reflects 
on its thought. Now this is impossible in a material 
being. An atom put in motion, will react on those 
contiguous to it ; but that it should react on itself is 
an absurdity so revolting that the least fastidious of 
materialists will find it difficult to receive it. 

Liberty of a thinking being — Matter is blindly sub- 
missive to the actions of external agents ; it can 
neither avoid, nor suspend, nor prolong the effects of 
the impressions that it receives from them. I am not 
then matter ; for next to consciousness of existence, the 
most lively sentiment in me is that of liberty. I think, 
reason, and teel freely. Among the different impres- 
sions, I choose one, and attach myself to it in such a 
manner that I become insensible to every other, as 
occurs so often in the phenomenon of abstraction, 
where my mind exclusively occupied with one object, 
hears nothing, feels nothing, sees nothing that is pass- 
ing around me. But a much more singular effect of 
my liberty is that, in certain cases, I can will the des- 
truction of my body. The fact, alas! too frequent, of 
suicide, will always continue, according to the prin- 
ciples of materialism, a revolting enigma. I shall 
give two reasons for it. 

First: The most universal, profound and indestruct- 
ible determination, in all living beings, is the desire ot 
preservation, the will to be. Hence, in animals, the 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



23 



extreme energy with which they repel everything 1 
that menaces their existence; hence, in our own bodies, 
the violent reaction of the stomach against poisons; 
hence, in the moment of peril, that extraordinary in- 
stinct, which enables me to discover powers superior 
to the habitual strength of my organs, resources 
superior to the ordinary resources of my mind. How 
could man evade this law of nature if there were not 
in him a being which can say to the body : 1 Thou art 
mine enemy, an obstacle to my well being; die then! ' 

Second: Suicide, in the system of the materialist, 
would be the reaction of matter against itself, which 
we have already said, implies a contradiction." 

We have seen that the soul is a simple substance, 
though united with the body, yet really distinct from 
it. It is a living substance, because life is required to 
reason, to think, to judge, to will, etc. Its life con- 
sists in its intrinsic activity, that is, in its actual 
intrinsic power of thought and volition. Being a 
simple and living substance, it must necessarily be 
immortal. It always, and. necessarily, follows from 
the death of compound substances, that the parts of 
which they are composed are separated, though they 
are not destroyed by death; they assume different forms, 
as, for instance, the body, in the grave, decomposes 
and is partly changed into earth; its watery substance 
unites itself with other elements. But it is evident 
that death cannot take place unless there are parts, 
which can undergo separation ; hence, death can only 
affect compound substances ; but, as the soul is a sim- 
ple substance, not having parts which can undergo 
separation, it, consequently, cannot perish when sep- 
arated from the body, unless by annihilation. Noth- 



24 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



ing is annihilated in the material world ; by death, the 
particles which compose substances, are only separated 
and reduced to other elements, as all natural Philos- 
ophers teach and prove. God annihilates nothing. 
If He would annihilate the soul after the death of the 
body, it, the nobler part of man, would then be in a 
worse condition than the body. We cannot, -for an 
instant, suppose that God will annihilate the soul, 
because that would be contrary to His goodness, and 
to the order which He established to govern, direct, 
and lead all things to the end for which He created 
them. As the soul, then, cannot undergo dissolution, 
that is, it has no parts to be separated, it must, neces- 
sarily, by its own nature, be immortal. It must live 
for all eternity. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



25 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE FREE WILL OF MAX. 

An important subject, connected with the former, 
presents itself to our consideration, namely, whether 
the soul is endowed with free will or not. Some have 
maintained that man has libcrtas acactione, that is, no 
violence is used to force him to act, or not to act ; but 
that he has not libertas a necessitate, that is, he is not 
internally free to act or not to act, to choose or not to 
choose. Such a doctrine destroys all merit and de- 
merit; it subverts the whole moral order, as we shall 
see further on. Man is internally free ; he has the 
power to act, or not to act, to choose or not to choose, 
or, in other words, he is an internally free agent. 

It is evident, from the testimony of consciousness, 
that we judge infallibly of the present state of our 
mind; that we exist, perceive, judge and reason ; no 
man in his sound senses, can deny this ; but we are just 
as certain that we are as free in many of our actions 
as we are that we exist, think, reason, etc. I perceive 
that I have the power to sit, rise, walk, or stand, to 
move my arm, etc. ; I must then be a free agent. We 
know from the testimony of our conscience, which 
does, not only in general, dictate the good to be em- 
braced and the evil to be avoided, but it points out 
from general principles of morals what, in particular 
instances, is to be done as good and what is to be 



26 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



shunned as evil. We know that when man commits a 
crime, for instance murder, robbery, or any other 
transgression, he feels remorse of conscience, and 
sometimes so terribly that he can find no rest ; even 
the very pagans, illuminated only by the light of 
nature, were convinced of this truth, for Cicero calls 
the remorse of conscience domestic furies which tor- 
ment the wicked day and night. When men wish to 
commit shameful crimes they shun the light and the 
presence of others. If their crimes are detected they 
are stricken down with shame ; they feel the effects of 
their evil acts. Reason, then, with which God' enlight- 
ens every man coming into the world, dictates the 
good to be done and the evil to be avoided in particu- 
lar instances ; there is, therefore, a natural law given 
by God to direct the actions of men. The observance 
or the violation of the law is to choose good or evil ; 
but to choose good or evil is an exercise of the free 
will. Again, if man were not free in his acts, he cer- 
tainly could not feel remorse of conscience and the 
turpitude of his crimes; and when brought to justice, 
he could not regret the commission of crime which 
brought punishment and disgrace upon him, because 
it is not in his power to avoid crime. This is not ad- 
missible ; our innate sense and the testimony of all 
nations and ages assert the contrary. God, in His 
goodness, and by His omnipotent power, created man 
and preserves him ; man is, then, entirely dependent 
on his Creator and Preserver. He is bound to observe 
the moral order established by God. If he disturbs it 
by transgressing the divine law, he rebels against 
God ; if, on the other hand, he faithfully observes the 
law of God, the Divine Justice requires that the trans- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



27 



gressor shall be visited with adequate punishment, 
and that the observer of the law shall receive the re- 
ward of his fidelity. But if you take away free will, 
then the transgressor does what is not in his power to 
avoid, nor can the observer 'of the law do otherwise 
than comply with it. God would then punish the 
culprit for that which he could not avoid; such a 
punishment is unjust. God cannot punish unjustly 
for if He could that would destroy the attribute of 
His justice, and, consequently, His existence. 

On the other hand, if God would reward the marr y 
who is faithful in the observance of the law, the reward 
would be unmerited, because the observer has no free 
will to do otherwise. This would do away with all 
merit and demerit and make man a mere machine. 

Again, God is the Infinite Good; but His goodness 
does not permit Him to impose impossible or injurious 
laws on His creatures, for that would destroy the attri- 
bute of His goodness, which requires that no impossi- 
ble or injurious laws be imposed on the creature, but He 
requires His creatures to obey His laws in order to 
attain their last end; his laws are then possible and 
beneficial ; man must therefore have free will to obey 
them. Nations of all ages have recognized free will 
in man, for it was with this persuasion that they 
framed their laws, formed treaties with other nations 
and consulted the interests of their subjects. They 
praised and rewarded noble and virtuous actions,, 
inflicted punishment on the transgressors of the law,, 
studied and preserved order and regularity in their 
respective states. Insane persons were not punished 
because crime was not imputed to them; hence among 
the Romans, he went unpunished who had killed hi& 



2S 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



father, because they considered him insane. But as 
they punished crime they evidently considered that he, 
who committed it, had free will; otherwise, if the per- 
petrator had no free will, he could not avoid trans- 
gressing the law; and the government, in punishing 
him, chastised him for an act which he could not 
avoid ; but that is unjust, it is tyranny ; those people 
were then all tyrants. But the government was not 
free; it was impelled by necessity to inflict punish- 
ment, because the adversary says " there is no internal 
free will; everything must happen by necessity." 
Such a doctrine subverts all law and order ; it intro- 
duces crime and licentiousness without end. What 
need have I then to bolt. my door, to be on my guard 
against robbers. I am compelled to lock the house 
and the robber is also compelled to despoil me of my 
goods. It appears almost impossible to imagine that 
men can be carried into such revolting absurdities. 
They would destroy free will, the noblest faculty of 
the soul, and, in their unbridled madness, subvert the 
whole moral order if they could. It is, nevertheless, 
a fact that these same men, who deny free will, de- 
mand the greatest liberty themselves. They want 
liberty or freedom to act as they think proper ; they 
want liberty of thought, liberty to write what they 
please, no matter how pernicious their writings may 
be to the community ; liberty to go where they wish, 
and do what they like. If any laws be made restrain- 
ing their passions, they immediately revolt and com- 
plain that they are deprived of their freedom; they 
furiously cry out against the legislators and the gov- 
ernment, calling them tyrants and oppressors of 
liberty, notwithstanding that, according to their prin- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 2ft 

ciples, all these things are not deliberate, but happen 
by a certain necessity. If they are chastised, robbed 
of their goods, or cast into prison, they complain of 
cruelty and tyranny ; they are entirely unwilling to be 
subject to such treatment. By their acts they show the 
extreme absurdity of their doctrines; they deny by 
their works what they profess with their tongues. 



30 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER V. 
GOD CREATED MAN FOR AN END. 

In all created things there is a twofold good. Good- 
ness is the established law and order of God. There 
is an order by which all things subsist, as, for instance, 
the tree receives its means of subsistence from the 
-earth ; the moisture passes through its pores, which 
•enables it to sustain life, to bring forth its foliage and 
to fructify: so also all other plants are so organized 
and have such means as will enable them to subsist. 
We find in animals an organization and there is a pro- 
vision for their subsistence ; even the most insignifi- 
cant worm, which creeps on the earth, has ample 
provision for its subsistence. Besides the goodness or 
order in things, there is an order which leads them to 
the end for w T hich they were created; the end is the 
goodness of God. The orders, which we observe in 
things, by which they subsist and by which they are 
led to their ultimate end, are an effect ; but there can 
be no effect without a cause;* God is the cause; He, 
therefore, created man and all things, and, consequent- 
ly provides for them, or, in other words, there is a 
Divine Providence. But the noblest being of the 
visible creation is man; his immortal soul with all its 
faculties, elevates him, beyond expression, above the 
other material creation. If God made such ample 
provision for the irrational creation, there must be a 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



31 



providence for man as far above the irrational creation 
as he surpasses it by his superiority. An agent, 
who makes use of his reason, must act for some end, 
otherwise he acts irrationally; but he, who wishes the 
end, must necessarily wish the means required to 
obtain the end; the means must be fully sufficient, 
otherwise they can not be called means. God, the 
Creator of all things, is an Agent of infinite intelli- 
gence ; in acting or creating, He must act according 
to His intelligence and rationality; in acting intelli- 
gently and rationally, He must act for some end. 
God cannot act unintelligently or irrationally, for He 
is [the Infinite and the uncreated Intelligence and 
Reason ; if He could, that would destroy His intelli- 
gence and reason, and, consequently, His existence ; 
man was then created for an end. As. man has an 
immortal soul, his end cannot be like that of the other 
visible creation, temporal, but it must be eternal. 
God is the Infinite Good ; He must then love all things, 
which He created ; it is evident that He does so from 
the fact that He made the necessary provision for their 
subsistence and leads them to their ultimate end. 
But as God is the Infinite Good, He cannot lead His 
creatures to an evil end, because evil is contrary to 
His established law and order ; if He could, that would 
destroy His established order, and, consequently His 
existence. If rational beings do not obtain the end 
of their creation, it is because they, by the perversity 
of theii free will, disturb and destroy the order estab- 
lished by God, which is necessary to lead them to 
their last end. As God loves all things which He 
.created and directs them to their ultimate end, He 
must then love man more than any other object in the 



32 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



visible creation, because he is superior by His immor- 
tal soul ; and, as his end is everlasting because his 
soul is immortal, God must have, then, established the 
order which leads to that end, otherwise He would 
not have acted according to His intelligence; but, in 
creating He must use His intelligence and will. In 
His supreme goodness, God cannot create an evil end 
for the noblest of His creatures, because if the Divine 
law is faithfully observed by man he is worthy of 
reward ; but if God had destined him for an evil end, 
who lives according to the divine will, He would pun- 
ish him for his fidelity ; God cannot do this', for it 
would • destroy His goodness, and consequently His 
existence. The end, then, of man, must be one which 
renders him happy for all eternity; this is in conform- 
ity with the infinite goodness of God and with the 
soul of man seeking happiness. 

Moreover, it is in the nature of man to have a con- 
stant longing after happiness; he cannot divest 
himself of this desire ; and, what is most remarkable, 
nothing can be found on earth which can satisfy the 
cravings of his heart. Hence, he imagines that if he 
could gain a certain object he would be perfectly 
happy and contented; but his wishes are no sooner 
complied with "than he finds his heart as void as 
before. It is true that men may seek happiness in 
various ways ; some in the accumulation of wealth, in 
honors and in the enjoyment of life; others, in grati- 
fying their passions ; but experience too clearly proves 
that no true happiness can be found in any of these 
things ; that the desires of the heart are not satisfied, 
and that unfortunately it too often feels bitterness and 
remorse. They only enjoy true happiness who 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 



33 



detach their affections from creatures — from all transi- 
tory objects, and fix them on the Eternal Good; but 
even such happiness is incomplete in this life ; it can 
only be found in eternity. It is evident, then, that 
nothing material can satisfy the soul, because it is an 
immaterial substance ; God alone can satisfy it and 
will if His laws are observed ; it follows, therefore, 
that God created this desire of happiness in the soul. 

Again, the end of man must be a happy one for all 
eternity: 

First: Because he has a constant desire of happiness 
and nothing can be found in this life which can satisfy 
the cravings of his heart ; but this desire of happiness 
is implanted in the soul by God ; if then there is no 
happy state alter the death of the body, then man's 
desires are frustrated; then God, who created that 
constant desire of happiness in the soul, continually 
deceives him ; but God cannot deceive man for He is 
the Infinite Truth; He can neither deceive nor be 
deceived. 

Second: The more noble a creature is the more 
exalted should be its end. The animal's happiness 
consists in the enjoyment of its food ; when its appe- 
tite is satisfied it is contented and no higher happiness 
remains for it; it is not so with man; the entire ma- 
terial world cannot satisfy his desires. If there is no 
happy state after death, then his end is lower and 
worse than that of the brute, because the desires of 
the brute can be satisfied but not those of man. The 
wisdom of God requires that the end of a being must 
be proportioned to its dignity ; God must, then, have 
assigned man an end as far above the irrational 
creation as he surpasses it in dignity ; and as his soul 



34 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



is immortal his destiny must be one of happiness for 
all eternity ; if it were otherwise, the wisdom of God 
could not be reconciled with his acts. They must 
have a very low estimate of human nature, who assign 
an end to man equal or below that of the brute ; 
they degrade human nature to the lowest degree of 
debasement. 

Third: Rational nature requires man to live in 
society ; but rational nature cannot contradict itself ; 
but if there is no future happy life rational nature con- 
tradicts itself. The nature of man requires him to 
live in society ; to prove this I will quote St. Thomas : 
" If man were intended to live alone, like many ani- 
mals, he would not require any one to govern him ; 
every man would be his own king, under the supreme 
command of God ; in as much as he would govern 
himself by the light of reason given him by the Creator. 
But it is in the nature of man to be a social and politi- 
cal animal, living in community, differently from all 
animals; a thing which is clearly shown by the neces- 
sities of his nature. 

Nature has provided for other animals food ; skins for 
a covering, means of defence, — as teeth, horns, claws, 
— or, at least, speed in flight ; but she has not endowed 
man with any of these qualities ; and instead, she has 
given him reason, by which, with the assistance of his 
hands, he can procure what he wants. But to procure 
this one man alone is not enough ; for he is not in a 
condition to preserve his own life ; it is, therefore, 
in man's nature to live in society. Moreover, nature 
lias granted to other animals the power of discerning 
what is useful or injurious to them : thus the sheep 
has a natural horror of his enemy, the wolf. There 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



85 



are also certain animals which know by nature the 
herbs, which are medicinal to them, and other things 
which are necessary for their preservation. But man has 
not naturally the knowledge, which is requisite for 
the support of life, except in society, in as much as 
the aid of reason is capable of leading from universal 
principles to the knowledge of particular things which 
are necessary for life. Thus, then, since it is impossi- 
ble for man alone to obtain all this knowledge, it is 
necessary that he should live in society, one aiding 
another ; each applying to his own task ; for example, 
some in medicine; some in one way and some in 
another. This is shown with great clearness in the 
faculty peculiar to man, language — which enables him 
to communicate his thoughts to others. Indeed brute 
animals mutually communicate their feelings; as the 
dog communicates his anger by barking, and other 
animals their passions by various ways. But man, 
with respect to his fellows, is more communicative 
than any other animal ; even than those which are 
most inclined to live in unison, as cranes and bees. In 
this sense, Solomon says, in Ecclesiastes: " It is better, 
therefore, that two should be together than one ; for N 
they have the [advantage of their society." Thus if it 
be natural for man to live in society, it is necessary 
that some one directs the multitude ; for if many were 
united, and each one did as he thought proper, they 
would fall to pieces, unless somebody looked after the 
public good, as would be the case with the human 
body, and that of any other animal, if there did not 
exist a power to watch over the welfare of all the 
members. In man himself the soul directs the body ; 
and in the soul the feelings of anger and concupiscence 



36 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



are governed by reason. Among the members of the 
body, there is one principle one which directs all ; as 
the heart or the head. There ought then to be in every 
multitude some governing power. (De Regimine 
Principum Lib. I, Cap. I.) It is natural that each 
member in the human body does its part in order 
that the "entire body may be preserved. The mem- 
ber is willing to undergo the greatest inconvenience 
and even death itself rather than let the body perish ; 
hence men submit to the most rigorous and painful 
treatment, and, if necessary, have a member amputated 
rather that submit to death. Society is composed of in- 
dividuals ; and rational nature often times impels them 
to make great sacrifices for the preservation of the 
whole body. Each member is bound to do his part ; 
hence when the body is attacked the members fly to 
its defence, and, if necessary, expose their^ lives to the 
most imminent danger ; therefore, they sacrifice their 
own individual good, and desire of happiness, on the 
altar of public good ; but rational nature teaches man 
to seek his own individual good and happiness ; there- 
fore, if there is no happy state hereafter, rational nature 
contradicts itself ; but that is impossible. It is, then, 
the hope of reward and the fear of punishment, here- 
after, that can give real motives to each member of 
society to make such sacrifices. 

Fourth: It is evident from the sancity of God that 
there is a future life. The sanctity of God cannot per- 
mit Him to prevent men from the practice of virtue ; 
and it cannot impel them to lead vicious lives ; but if 
there is no other life God prevents men from prac- 
ticing virtue and impels them to lead vicious lives, 
because He has implanted in their hearts a natural and , 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



37 



efficatious desire of happiness, of which they cannot 
divest themselves ; but if there is no other life, in 
which virtue will be rewarded and vice punished, man 
would have less pleasure and happiness in the practice 
of virtue than in following his vicious inclinations, 
because all those who wish to lead truly pious lives, 
must do violence to themselves ; they must renounce 
many things which are pleasing to human nature, they 
must frequently bear the odium, calumny and persecu- 
tion of wicked men; while, on the other hand, the 
wicked escape the labors and difficulties required for 
the practice of virtue ; therefore, man, impelled by the 
innate desire of happiness, would lead a vicious rather 
than a virtuous life. That would entirely destroy the 
sanctity of God ; therefore there must be another life 
beyond the grave, in which God will reward His faith- 
ful servants and punish those who rebel against His 
divine majesty. 



83 



THE DESTINY OF MAK AND 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE MEANS TO GAIN A HAPPY 'END. 

God is the Supreme Lord of the universe; His 
jurisdiction extends over the entire irrational and 
rational creation. The rational creation consists of 
men and angels. As man is created by God, and as 
God has the absolute right to exercise His dominion 
over him, he must, therefore, be subject to his Creator 
in all those things which God requires. The end of 
man is not temporal but eternal, as we have seen. In 
order to obtain it, he must make use of the means 
required by God ; if, by the abuse of his free will he 
neglects or despises the means, his end will not be 
happy but miserable. God has a perfect right to exact 
of him a full and firm assent to all the truths which 
he has revealed, and obedience to his laws. Man, 
in order to be saved, must then believe all the 
truths of divine and supernatural revelation; and, 
moreover, obey God's laws; if he refuses, he rebels 
against the Divine Majesty. God has the right to 
make the conditions of the salvation of man as He 
pleases ; man cannot make his own conditions. 

It is a great error to suppose that truth and opinion 
are identical. Before proceeding farther it is neces- 
sary to form a clear conception of truth. Truth is 
that which is; it is a reality or a being. A being must 
have essence ; the essence of a thing is that which 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



39 



makes it what it is, as for instance, the essence of a 
triangle is the three sides and the three angles, which 
are its essential attributes and constitute its essence. 
In every essence the attributes must harmonize, for, ii 
there is a disagreement of attributes there can be no 
essence — no reality and no existence, as, for example, 
a triangle with four sides and five angles cannot exist ; 
it is an absurdity. God has from all eternity the ex- 
emplar of the harmony of all realities and possibilities 
in His mind. The agreement of attributes constitut- 
ing essences is the truth. Truth is immutable ; it is 
eternal. You may try to change it ; you may misrep- 
resent it; you may deny it; it still remains the same. 
It does not admit of progress, because progress means 
that a thing is incomplete and is advancing towards 
its completion. Now, it is evident that every truth is 
complete and perfect in itself. A man may be pro- 
gressive in finding truth ; but it does not follow that 
the truth which he discovers is progressive. Truth is 
the same in the natural and supernatural order, because 
the different orders cannot change its nature. An 
opinion is the j udgment which the mind forms of any 
proposition, statement, theory or event the truth or 
falsehood of which is supported by a degree of evi- 
dence that renders it probable, but does not produce 
certainty. Hence, in an opinion there is always 
room for doubt, fear that the opposite may be true — 
that we may be mistaken. Certitude is a firm adhesion 
of the mind to the known truth without any danger 
of erring. An opinion excludes certitude ; but certi- 
tude is necessary; for without it we can have no 
positive knowledge of truth, or even of the existence 
of the laws of the land by which we are governed. A 



40 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



law, in order to bind, must be known with certitude 
for it is an axiom that uncertain laws do not bind ; 
therefore, we can entertain no opinion with regard to 
the existence of the law. If men had simply an opin- 
ion whether laws existed or not; they would not obey 
them, or, at least, those which are antagonistic to their 
private interests : disorder would arise in the commu- 
nity, and society would become a prey to chaos ; 
opinions are then not sufficient in our intercourse 
with our fellow men ; the certitude of truth is required. 

But God created man for a happy end in eternity ; 
man, by his freewill, must use the means necessary to 
arrive at his end ; but he cannot use the means unless, 
he infallibly knows them. As God wishes the end of 
man, he must give him the knowledge necessary for 
obtaining the end ; but this knowledge consists in 
knowing the truths of divine and supernatural revela- 
tion ; this does not mean that we can have an intrinsic 
perception of the truth of the matter revealed, but that 
we have the knowledge that God revealed it. Super- 
natural truths cannot be a matter of opinion, they 
must exclude all doubt, for God is their Author, who 
can neither deceive nor be deceived. If divine reve- 
lations were a matter of opinion, man would be uncer- 
tain what to do to be saved ; then the means of 
salvation would be uncertain ; but uncertain means 
are no means; in this hypothesis, God would be the 
Author of the deception, or, at least, He would connive 
at it ; that would render Him imperfect, and destroy 
His existence. If the truths of divine revelation are 
taken in the abstract, we cannot come to the knowledge 
of them. They must be taken in the concrete, that is 
there must be a channel through which they are con- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



41 



veyed to the intellect, that channel must be cognoscible 
and visible. Men must be deputed by God, with 
proper authority to teach other men ; that authority 
must be infallible, otherwise we would never be certain 
what divine revelation is. Those who do not recog- 
nize an infallible authority are compelled to ground 
their religious belief on fallibility; but fallibility ex- 
cludes certitude; where there is no certitude there 
can be be no divine revelation; hence at most they 
can have nothing else than mere opinion. They 
claim honest conviction ; but honest conviction is one 
thing, divine revelation something quite different. 
The Baptist claims honest conviction for himself as 
well as you; his honest conviction maintains that 
those who teach that infants should be baptized are in 
error. The Methodist holds the opposite doctrine and 
his honest conviction is that the Baptist is in error. 
The honest conviction of the Universalist is that there 
is no hell; the honest conviction of the Presbyterian 
is that there is a hell ; the honest conviction of the 
Unitarian is that Christ is not God; the honest con- 
viction of the Lutheran is that Christ is God ; the 
honest conviction of the materialist is that a man's 
soul dies with the body; the honest conviction of the 
German-Reformed is that the soul is immortal, etc., 
etc., etc. All these men claim to be as honest as you; 
they diif er among themselves in their honest convic- 
tion — you have almost as many^honest convictions as 
men. 

But we have the Bible, which is a sufficient guide. 
It is God's revealed Word; and in it we can find all 
that is .necessary to be saved. Before you have a right 
to appeal to the Bible, you must first prove by an in- 



42 THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 

fallible authority that it is the Word of God ; but you 
do not recognize an infallible authority ; from fallibil- 
ity you cannot prove infallibly that the Bible is the 
Word of God. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 48 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE BIBLE CANNOT BE THE WITNESS OF DIVINE AND SUPER- 
NATURAL REVELATION. 

First: The Bible was not completed until the close 
of the first century; it could not, then, have been the 
witness of the truths which Christ revealed to the 
first Christians; if they had any witness of revelation 
it was not the Bible. 

Second: The Bible cannot be adduced as the wit- 
ness of Divine and supernatural revelation until 
it be proved by an infallible authority that it is 
authentic; that is, that it was written by the persons 
to whom it is ascribed. Before it is authenticated we 
cannot know what books are Sacred Scripture and 
what books are not. In the earlier ages of Christian- 
ity some books were considered doubtful for several 
centuries in some of the churches. 

Eusebius of Caesarea is generally considered as the 
oldest church historian; he wrote the history of the 
church from the commencement down to A. D. 337. 
and died about the year 340. This historian says : 
" Matthew, also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in 
Hebrew, when on the point of going to other nations, 
committed it to writing in his native tongue; and thus 
supplied the want of his presence to them by his 
writings" (Book iii., Chap. 24). The Hebrew copy of 
St. Matthew's Gospel is lost ; a Greek translation is 



44 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



-extant; by whom it was rendered into Greek is not 
known. Speaking of the second epistle of St. Peter, 
he says: " But that which is called the second we 
have not, indeed, understood to be embodied with 
the sacred books, yet as it appears useful to many, it 
was studiously read with the Scriptures." (Book iii., 
Chap. 2). In another place he says: "-Among the 
disputed books, although they are well known 
and approved by many, is reputed that called the 
epistle of St. James and Jude. Also the second epis- 
tle of Peter, and those called the Second and Third of 
John, whether they are of the Evangelist or of some 
other of the same name." (Book iii., Chap. 25.) All 
these disputed books, mentioned by Eusebius, are con- 
tained in King James's version of the Bible. 

The first five books of the Bible are ascribed to 
Moses. In the last chapter of the fifth book we read 
as follows : 

" Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab upon 
Mount Nebo to the top of Phasgah over-against 
Jericho : and the Lord showed him all the land of 
Galaad as far as Dan. 

"2. And all Nephtali, and the land of Ephraim 
and Manasses, and all the land of Juda unto the fur- 
thermost sea. 

" 3. And the south part, and the breadth of the plain 
of Jericho, the city of palm-trees, as far as Segor. 

" 4. And the Lord said to him : This is the land for 
which I swore to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying 
I will give it to thy seed. Thou hast seen it with 
thy eyes, and shalt not pass over to it. 

u 5. And Moses the servant of the Lord died there 
in the land of Moab, by the commandment of the Lord. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



45 



u 6. And He buried him in the valley of the land of 
Moab, over-against Phogor, and no man hath known 
of his sepulchre until this present day." 

It was Pope Innocent the First, who finally decided 
the canon or catalogue of the Bible; in the year 405. 
in his epistle to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse. (Apud 
Constant. Epist. Rom. Pontif. inter Innocentias ep. 6 r 
cap. 7). It is the same as that given by the Council of 
Trent in A. D. 1545, including those books which are 
rejected as apocryphal by Protestants in their edition 
of the Bible. The New American Cyclopoedia gives 
us an account, by which we can see that for a long 
time it was not determined what books were canonical 
and w^hat books were not. Under the article " canon,' 1 * 
it says : " The most ancient (canon) that of Melito- 
(A. D. 177 ) contained all the Jewish books excepting- 
Esther, but excluded the apocrypha. With this cata- 
logue agreed those of Gregory Nazianzen (A. D. 370) 
and of Amphilochius (A. D. 370). Origen's list in- 
cludes ail the Hebrew books, and the apocryphal 
Baruch. With him agree Cyral of Jerusalem (348) the- 
council of Laodicea (363), and Epiphanius (368). Ath- 
anasius omits Esther and retains Baruch. The 
Apostolic canons, of uncertain date, admit three books 
of Maccabees, one of Judith, and recommend instruc- 
tions in Ecclesiasticus. The catalogues of the Latin 
church coincide with the Jewish canon in so far as 
they exclude no books reckoned as canonical by the; 
latter; but two of them admit writings, which the- 
latter rejected. Thus the canon of Augustin (A. D. 
375, ) embraces the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom 
of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, first and second Macca- 



46 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



bees ; and the third council of Carthage adopted the 
same enumeration." 

The Council of Trent, in A. D. 1545, gave the 
canon or catalogue of the books J of the Bible as we 
find it in the Vulgate edition ; among the books are 
found those which the Protestant version rejects as 
apocryphal. The Trentinian canon is the same as 
that which was given by Pope Eugenius the Fourth, 
in the year 1439, by a decree, and in the name of the 
Roman Church, to the Jacobites, (Apud Hardnin, 
Acta Conci]. tome 9, col. 1023 seq.) It is the same as 
that given by Pope Gelasius, in 497. (Tome 4, Anas- 
tasii de vitis Rom. Pontificum edit. Blanchinii Romae 
.1735' Prologam. opusculum 3, pag. 61 seq). It is the 
same as that given by Pope Innocent the First in his 
epistle to Exuperius, in 405. (Apud Constant. Epist. 
Rom. Pontif. inter Innocen. ep. 6, cap. 7). The same 
catalogue is found in St. Augustin's book, De Doc- 
trina Christiana, (vol. ii., ch. 8 ). The third council 
of Carthage gave the same catalogue in 397 (cap. 47) ; 
and also the council of Hippo, in 395. (can. 27.). Pope 
Innocent the First testifies in his twenty-fifth epistle 
to Decentius, that the African church received the 
Roman canon of the Scriptures from the Roman 
church. We learn, moreover, from the first epistle, 
which some call the second, of Pope St. Clement, who 
lived toward the end of the first century, that the same 
catalogue was recognized by the Roman church. 
Clement does not mention the Gospel of St. John, 
nor the Apocalypse. It is thought by the learned that 
the Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse were not 
then written. (Godefroi vendelini de Clementis et 
ejus epistolarum tempore devinatio, apud Coltelerinm 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 



47 



tome, i, Patr. Apostolic, nec non ejusdem Cotelerii 
Judicium de priore epistola S. Clementis.) St. John 
wrote the Apocalypse during his banishment on 
the Island of Patmos, where he had been banished by 
the emperor Domitian. After his return he wrote his 
Gospel at the request of the Bishops of Asia. St. 
Justin and St. Ireacus bear evidence that when the 
Roman church had received those writings she recog- 
nized them as canonical. Consult St. Jerome, De 
viris illustr. Ecclesiastical writers of the first four 
centuries held different opinions with regard to the 
canon or catalogue of the Bible. The canons of the 
different particular churches differed. Four centuries 
had elapsed before the canon was finally settled. To 
say that the authenticity of the Bible can be proved 
from the Bible is assuming as proof what remains to 
be proved. No text can be found in the whole Bible, 
which says that the Bible is authentic. 

We have seen that the first five books are ascribed 
to Moses; yet in the last chapter of Deuteronomy, the 
last of the five books, the death and burial of Moses 
are recorded. It is not likely that he recorded his 
own death and burial after he had been dead. King 
James's version of the Bible excludes several books 
which are found in the Latin Vulgate Edition. More- 
over, there was much controversy concerning various 
books of the Bible. Luther rejects the Catholic epis- 
tle of St. James, calling it an epistle of straw; he also 
doubts the canonicity of several others. We find many 
in our day, who reject large portions of the Sacred 
Scriptures, others deny them entirely. The Ebionites 
in the first century, admitted no part of the New Tes- 
tament, except the Gospel of St. Matthew, which they 



48 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



mutilated. The Corinthians, the Gnostics, the Mar- 
tionites, the Manicheans, etc., in subsequent times, 
rejected large portions of the Bible; yet the differ- 
ences of all these people were not adjusted by the 
Bible ; nothing else than the supreme authority of the 
church could and did pioduce harmony, and that only 
in the year 405. But the testimony of the Christians 
of the earlier ages of Christianity bears evidence that 
the" Bible is authentic. The Ebionites, the Corinth- 
ians, the Gnostics, the Martionites, the Manicheans, 
and a host of others, I believe, considered themselves 
Christians; yet they rejected large portions of the 
Bible. But it must be granted that they cannot be 
admitted as evidence. Then you mean the orthodox 
Christians. They were not agreed with regard to the 
canon of the Bible, for, as we have seen, ecclesiastical 
writers in those times differed among themselves as to 
what constituted the canon; and the canons of the differ- 
ent particular churches did not harmonize. Conflicting 
evidence is not admissible; therefore, that does not 
settle the question. But the Roman church bore 
constant evidence, from the Apostolic times, as to .what 
constitutes the catalogue of the books of the Sacred 
Scriptures. By appealing to the Roman church you 
depart from your principle of fallibility. You do not 
recognize the supreme authority in the Roman 
as infallible, and consequently, you do not acknowl- 
edge the Roman church to be infallible. By taking 
the Roman church as the witness of the canonicity of 
the Bible, and by rejecting her definitions of other 
Christian truths, you put yourself in a false and very 
ugly position. You say that the Roman church can 
err ; and, by the fact of your protesting against her, 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 49 



you say that she has erred ; therefore, according to 
your principle of fallibility, you cannot accept the 
evidence of the Roman church. Besides the Roman 
church says that not all the canonical books are in 
your Bible ; from this fact it is evident that you reject 
the authority of the Roman church in defining what 
books are Bible and what books are not. In rejecting 
an infallible authority, it is impossible to prove with 
infallible certitude the canon of the Scriptures. By 
fallible witnesses we may be deceived ; but if we have 
no other than fallible witnesses to prove the Bible, 
then we are uncertain whether it is the Word of God 
or not; the Bible then cannot be the witness of divine 
and supernatural revelation. 

Third : We have many different versions of the 
Bible which not only differ in minor points but, in 
many instances, convey a different sense; he, who will 
take the trouble to compare the different versions, will 
find that such is the fact. The version of King James 
is not the same as theDouay ; nor does it correspond 
with the Protestant Bible printed in 1562, in 1577 and 
in 1579. The New American Cyclopcedia, in article 
"Bible," has the following : " The task of purifying the 
Greek of the New Testament and of bringing it to the 
perfection in which it is presented to us in our latest 
and best editions, was much less difficult than that of 
recovering the true text of the Old Testament. Still 
it was a work of no small magnitude. Not a fragment 
of writing from the hands of an Evangelist or an 
Apostle survived the early generations that used the 
original MSS., and wrote them out. The primitive 
Christians though setting a high value* upon these 
productions, did^not feel the importance of laying 



50 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



them sacredly aside. The greater their value, the 
more extensive their circulation, the briefer conse- 
quently their existence. The Books of the New 
Testament were written, after the custom of the 
times, upon papyrus, or parchment, finer and more 
durable, which was beginning to take the place of pap- 
yrus, and were in the roll-form. The writing itself 
done with a reed and ink, was in unical or large letters 
and ran in continuous lines. There were no spaces 
between the words ; there were no capitals or stops, 
and very few sentences; iota sub script, accents and 
breathings were all omitted. The heading of the 
books, " according to Matthew," " according to Luke," 
etc., was added later, probably not before the whole 
collection of the Gospels was made. The epistles 
may have had their address marked upon them, though 
it was perhaps inferred from the opening chapters. 
The title " Catholic " was bestowed upon an epistle 
by the end of the second century. The earliest copies 
of these books were sought by individuals for private 
use. Hence it might easily happen that as copies mul- 
tiplied they would vary more or less from the original 
and from each other, through the carelessness, the mis- 
takes,or the stupidity of many writers, who confounded 
letters, omitted and repeated words, or falsely divided 
them. Doctrinal prejudices had likewise some effect 
in corrupting the text during this uncertain and irre- 
sponsible period ; but yet more injury was done by the 
caprices of calligraphists, who took liberties with 
the spelling or the adornments of the MSS. Here 
and there they undertook to insert historical and 
geographical amendments ; or again, in their anxiety 
to make the several books harmonize, they ventured 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



51 



upon interpolations or corrections, which were by no 
means calculated to preserve the integrity of the 
writing. We must add to all this the glosses, that 
were inserted in the text, and the marginal notes 
made by some learned scribe, and afterwards by some 
dull transcriber introduced into the body of the MSS. 
The number of the copyists was great. Ignorant 
men undertook the work, because there was much of 
it to be done; and learned men undertook to prevent 
its being done badly ; but the emendments of the lat- 
ter were sometimes as injudicious as the blunders of 
the former. The most famous copyists, the calligraph- 
ists of Alexandria, were not well acquainted with 
Greek and Latin, and no care, skill or beauty of 
execution could make amends for that defect." 

We cannot suppose, because there are many and va- 
rious conflicting editions of the Bible, and have been in 
the earlier ages of Christianity, owing to the ignorance 
and carelessness of copyists, that no accurate version 
has come down to us, because there have been many 
conscientious ?nd learned men in all ages, who trans- 
lated and copied the Bible; nevertheless the supposition 
has at most only fallibility, and cannot exclude doubt; 
in reality it involves great doubt and difficulty from the 
fact that many different versions do not agree. From 
the principle of fallibility then it cannot be established 
that the Bible, as we have it, is the same as the origi- 
nal, because the original is not in existence. We 
have not even the original copies, nor do we know T by 
whom the first were made. We have to depend on 
the first copyists and translators i but as they did not 
agree among themselves, we can have no certitude- of 
the accuracy of the Bible. The only means left are 



52 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



the recognition of an inerrable witness of the truths 
of Divine Revelation, distinct from the Bible itself 
and of an infallible authority. You recognize neither 
an inerrable witness of revelation nor an infallible 
authority ; therefore you do not know whether you 
have a true or a false Bible. 

Fourth : The Divine Inspiration of the Bible cannot 
be proved before it be known to be authentic and 
accurate; that even is not sufficient; an infallible 
witness and an infallible authority are required. A 
text is quoted from St. Paul's epistle to Timothy, to 
prove the inspiration of the Bible: " All Scripture, 
divinely inspired, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to 
correct, to instruct injustice. ,, Before that passage of 
St. Paul or any other Scriptural passage can be 
adduced, as doctrinal evidence, we must be infallibly 
certain that the Scriptures are authentic and accurate. 
Moreover, St. Paul does not say what books are 
divinely inspired Scripture. 

No text can be found in the whole Bible, which says 
that the whole Bible is inspired. Again if you attempt 
to prove the inspiration of the Bible, from the Bible, 
you assume it as authentic and accurate ; but this 
remains to be proved, and cannot be done without an 
infallible authority, as we have seen. You then 
attempt to prove the book from the inspiration ; that 
is simply begging the question. But we are assured 
that the testimony of all ages is sufficient evidence. 
Enough has already been said to prove the contrary. 
But who are the witnesses ? They cannot be Pagans, 
because they did not only refuse to believe in the 
Sacred Writings, but they frequently destroyed all the 
copies which they could find. The old heretics can- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUJRCH. 53 

not be the witnesses ; for we learn from Tertullian 
and from many other ancient writers, that they did 
not receive all the scriptures, and those portions, 
which they did receive, they corrupted. You have, 
then, to fall back on the Catholic Church for your 
evidence. 

But you tell us that we see in the Catholic Church, 
present and past, only men subject to error, and most 
of them accomplices of the long continued abomina- 
tion of the Church of Rome, for the English Church 
tells us in her homilies that the church of Rome has 
been buried in idolatry for a thousand years and 
more. Suspected witnesses can have no claim on our 
belief, except in their capacity to deceive us ; they are 
not, therefore, admissible. The Divine Inspiration, 
the integrity and the authenticity of the Sacred Scrip- 
tures cannot therefore be proved from your principle 
of fallibility ; and infallible authority must be first 
established and admitted. 



54 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER V1IL 

HUMAN REASON CANNOT BE THE WITNESS* OF DIVINE AND SUPER- 
NATURAL REVELATION. 

We have seen in the preceding chapter that the 
Sacred Scriptures cannot be the witness of Divine 
and supernatural revelation. The next appeal is 
made to human reason, which is considered amply 
sufficient to solve the difficulty, particularly in this 
age. Many take it for their only guide for their jour- 
ney on the stormy sea of life. They tell us that they 
do not believe what they cannot fathom with their 
intellect; they look upon those as slaves, who subject 
their reason to the belief of truths which are beyond 
it ; they seem to forget that there are truths in the 
natural order, which human reason cannot explain. 
It is a fact, known by experience and observation, 
that the soul acts on the body and the body on the 
soul, spirit on matter, and matter on spirit. My will 
is a faculty of my soul ; by an act of the will I move 
my arm or finger ; the relation between the will and 
the motion of the arm is superintellible. The seed is 
thrown into the ground ; it springs up and becomes 
a tree; human reason does not tell us how this hap- 
pens. Electricity travels hundreds of miles almost 
instantaneously; human reason cannot explain the 
phenomenon. Many other truths of a similar nature 
can be found in the natural order. If, then, truths 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



55 



are found in the natural order which are beyond the 
human intellect, how much more must truths of the 
supernatural order be above human reason. What 
do we understand by human reason ? Reason is an 
intuition of principles. Principles are self-evident 
truths ; as, for example, two and two make four, the 
whole is greater than any of its parts. These princi- 
ples are self-evident objective truths, that is, they are 
not identical with intuition, but distinct from it, be- 
cause before the mind was created it could not have 
intuition of self-evident truths ; but the principles or 
first truths existed before the mind was created. It is 
. true from all eternity that the whole is greater than 
any part of it, that two and two make four. These 
truths exist in God's intellect from all eternity. Truth 
is one of God's attributes; He is the prima Veritas, the 
first, the Eternal Truth. If you make the self-evident 
principles, or truths of any kind, identical with created 
intuition, you fall into pantheism or atheism; because 
truth is eternal ; but if it be identical with intuition, 
then, intuition, which is an attribute of the soul, would 
be eternal, and consequently the soul would be eter- 
nal ; but that which is eternal must be infinite ; but 
• the Infinite is God ; then you would have as many 
gods as there are intuitions and souls. If you say 
that truth is not eternal, then, you destroy the exist- 
ence of. God; for it is nothing else than the agree- 
ment of attributes in realities and in possibilities, if 
God would -bring the possibility into a reality. For 
instance, the attributes of a triangle are the three sides 
and the three angles. A triangle with four sides and 
five angles is an absurdity ; the attributes destroy each 
other. God has from all eternity in His intellect the 



56 THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 

exemplar, or the idea of the harmony in everything, 
which he created in time ; and that harmony in the 
Divine Intellect is the truth ; that truth is eternal, it is 
God ; if you make it temporal you will have a tempor- 
al God ; a temporal God is no God at all ; therefore, 
truth is eternal and distinct from human intuition. 
What constitutes therefore human reason is the intui- 
tion, which is subjective, and the first principles, which 
are objective; between the intuition and the objective prin- 
ciples, or self-evident truths there must be a nexus or 
a bridge by which they form a union ; the union of 
both makes human reason. The principles, or self- 
evident truths are in the natural order, that is, within 
the sphere of created nature, otherwise they could not 
be intuitively known ; for the mind in having intui- 
tion of principle is circumscribed by limits ; it cannot 
therefore go beyond the limits marked out by the 
Creator. But if human reason be the witness of Di- 
vine and supernatural revelation it must see God face 
to face ; it must understand God in His infinitude ; it 
must moreover know by intuition that God made a 
supernatural revelation ; but God is the supernatural 
He is incomprehensible and infinite in all His 
attributes; but human reason cannot fathom the 
incomprehensibility of God; it cannot understand 
His infinitude ; the finite cannot understand the In- 
finite; but as human reason is finite it cannot on the 
ground of its intuitive knowledge of God, be the wit- 
ness of divine and supernatural revelation. It cannot 
be the witness on the grouud of its intuitive percep- 
tion of the truths of the matter revealed, because these 
extend beyond the limits of the natural intellect. How 
can human reason fathom this truth that one God ex- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHTTKCH. 



57 



ists in three Divine Persons that the three Divine 
Persons are really distinct ; yet have one essence, one 
nature, and consequently are only one God. Further- 
more, if human reason could have an intuitive per- 
ception of the intrinsic truths of the matter revealed, 
these truths would not be supernatural, but • simply 
natural ; they would, then, not be a matter of faith 
but of knowledge ; this would entirely destroy faith ; 
but faith is to believe what is not seen; it is a gift of 
God by which we believe .all the supernatural truths 
which He revealed; the grounds of this belief are the 
authority of God Himself. But it is asserted that the 
existence of God can be demonstrated by human 
reason, also His attributes ; therefore, human reason 
is the witness of divine and supernatural revelation. 
Let it be conceded that the existence of God and His 
attributes can be demonstrated by natural reason; 
nevertheless, the most that natural reason can prove 
is ihe possibility of Divine and supernatural revela- 
tion ; it cannot prove its actual existence, much less 
can it determine what it is. It can know from the 
natural order the supernatural only as far as it ap- 
pertains to the existence of God and only as far as He 
manifests Himself in the natural order ; but it cannot 
know God's manifestations in the supernatural order; 
divine and supernatural revelation is required for 
this, concerning which human reason is not and can- 
not be the witness, because it is beyond its limits. We 
must, then, seek a witness for Divine and supernat- 
ural revelation elsewhere. 



58 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER IX. 

CHRIST WAS ON EARTH AND FOUNDED A CHURCH. 

We are pilgrims embarked in the frail ship of life, 
and are steering the perishable vessel on the vast 
ocean of the world towards eternity. Storms of bit- 
terness, of trials and of sufferings arise ; we are in 
constant danger of being engulfed in the vast deep ; 
our hope is in the skillful pilot who directs the vessel. 
A pilot, experienced in the art of navigation is needed 
to manage the ship and to bring her safely into the 
harbor, otherwise she will perish in the storm. We 
will perish in the tempest of the world on our journey 
towards a happy eternity, unless we have a skillful 
guide, or leader, who can infallibly bring us to the 
happy port, we put ourselves under his guidance. It 
has been seen that neither the Bible nor natural reason 
can be a safe guide; we must, then, direct our investi- 
gations in another direction. Our first inquiry will 
be, whether Christ was on earth, and whether He 
founded a church. Such a question may cause a 
smile on the lips of many, for it is ar undisputed fact 
that He was on earth and established a church; but it 
would disconnect the chain of our investigation if the 
inquiry were omitted. 

The advent of Christ into the world is an event. 
Events must always be cpnnected with the time in 
which they transpire, otherwise they can have no exis- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUJRCH. 



59 



tence. In order to be accredited, they must be attested 
by evidence sufficiently weighty to produce moral 
certitude. The combined armies of Sobieski, king of 
Poland, and of Austria defeating the army of the 
Turks before the walls of Vienna, and putting it to 
flight, on the 12th of September A. D. 1683, is an event 
connected with the date given above, attested by his- 
torians without any contradiction, and believed by all 
nations. If an event forms an epoch, we have still 
weightier grounds for believing it. Constantine the 
Great, conquering Maxentius in A. D. 312, destroy- 
ing paganism and building Christianity on its ruins, 
forms an epoch in the christian era. We have not 
only historians, who attest this fact, but also the 
Christian monuments of fifteen hundred years. No 
one ever attempted to deny this Christian epoch. But 
an era affords the strongest proof, which the testimony 
of men can give, of the certitude of an event. The 
birth of Christ forms an era; we reckon our years from 
Him. The Christian era teaches us that our Saviour 
was born in Bethlehem of Judea eighteen hundred 
and seventy-six years ago. If any one will deny this 
he will be compelled to deny the Christian era, that is 
the testimony of all nations during eighteen hundred 
years. Josephus, the Jewish historian, mentions our 
Saviour in his Antiquities of the Jews, in the eigh- 
teenth book ; he calls Him " a wise man, if it be lawful 
to call Him a man." Tacitus says in his annals (book 
15 chap. 44) A. D. no : " Nero, in order to stifle the 
rumor (as if he himself had set Rome on fire), ascribed 
it to those people who were hated for their wicked 
practices and called, bj r the vulgar, Christians ; these 
he punished exquisitely. The author of this name 



60 



THE DESTINY OF ^IAX A2STD 



was Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was brought 
to punishment by Pontius Pilate the Procurator." 
Pliny, the Proconsul of Asia, states that " the Chris- 
tians sing a hymn to Christ, as to a God." Eusebius 
writes thus: " After the necessary preliminaries to the 
Ecclesiastical History, which we have proposed to 
write, it now remains that we commence our course 
invoking God the Father of the Word, and Jesus 
Christ Himself, our revealed Saviour and Lord, the 
heavenly Word of God, as our aid and fellow laborer 
in the narration of truth. It was the forty-second year 
of the reign of Augustus, but the twenty-eighth from 
the subjugation of Egypt and the death of Anthony 
and Cleopatra, which terminated the dynasty of the 
Ptolemies, when, according to the prophetic prediction 
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born in Beth- 
lehem of Judea ; the same year when the first census 
was taken : and Ouerinus was governor of Syria." 
(Ecc. His. book ist, chap 5). 

Christ our Lord was not only on earth, but He 
founded a society, or established a church, which, even 
to this day is named after Him ; it is called the 
Christian, but more commonly the Catholic Church. 
Josephus, the Jewish historian writes as follows: 
u Now there was, about this time, Jesus, a wise man, 
if it be lawful to call Him a man, for He was a doer 
of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive 
the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both 
many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was 
(the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of 
the principal men among us, had condemned Him to 
the cross; those that loved Him at first did not forsake 
Him ; for He appeared to them alive again the third 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



61 



day as the Divine Prophets had foretold these and ten 
thousand other wonderful things concerning Him. 
And the tribe of Christians, so named from Him, are 
not extinct at this day." (Antiquities of the Jews r 
Book 1 8th, chap. 3). Josephus says that Christ was a 
teacher of such men as received the truth with pleas- 
ure, that He had drawn over to Himself many Jews 
and Gentiles, and that His followers were not extinct 
when he (Josephus) wrote that part of his history. 
He mentions His followers ; but as He (Christ) de- 
parted from them, they could not follow Him in 
person ; they, therefore, followed His teachings, that 
is, they made profession of believing the truths which 
He had taught them, and of submitting to His laws : 
they were, therefore, a. society, a number of men called 
together by Him to believe His truths and to obey His 
laws, or a church ; for the very word church means a 
calling together. Christ, then, according to Josephus 
founded a church. 

Pliny the Proconsul of Asia wrote to the Roman. 
Emperor, Trajan, in A. D. 112. Among other things 
he says, " However they assure me that the main of 
their fault, or of their mistake was this, that they were 
wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was 
light and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alter- 
ternately, and to oblige themselves by a sacrament or 
oath not to do anything that was ill, but that they 
would commit no theft or pilfering or adultery; that 
they would not break their promises, or deny what 
was deposited with them when it was required back 
again ; after which it was their custom to depart, and 
to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which 
yet they had left off upon that edict, which I pub- 



62 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



lished at your command, and wherein I had forbidden 
any such conventicles. These examples made me think 
it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; 
which I did of two servant-maids, who were called 
deaconnesses ; but still I discovered no more than 
that they were addicted to a bad and extravagant su- 
perstition. Hereupon I have put off any further 
examination, and have recourse to you ; -for the affair 
seems to be well worth consultation, especially on 
account of the great number of those that are in dan- 
ger ; for there are many of every age, of every rank, 
and of both sexes, who are now and hereafter likely 
to be called to account, and to be in danger; for this 
superstition is spread like contagion not only in cities 
but into villages also, which yet there is reason to hope 
may be stopped and corrected. ,, (Lib. 10 Ep. 97). 
According to the testimony of Pliny, the number of 
Christians must have been immense, for he says that 
there were many of every age, of every rank and of 
both sexes, that they had spread like contagion, not 
only in cities and towns, but also in villages. He says 
furthermore, that they were forbidden to commit 
theft , pilfering and adultery ; that they were bound 
to keep their promises, and that they sang a hymn to 
Christ as God. They then had laws and a form of 
worship according to Pliny ; but laws and a form of 
worship presupposes a legislator, and an object to be 
worshipped ; the Christians, therefore, were a large 
and organized body,or a well founded church. Eusebius 
speaks of the commencement of the Christian church 
as follows : " Thus, then, under a celestial influence 
and co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour like the 
rays of the Sun, quickly irradiated the whole world 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



63 



Presently, in accordance with Divine Prophecy, the 
sound of His inspired Evangelists and Apostles had 
gone throughout all the earth and their words to the 
ends of the world. Throughout every city and village, 
like a replenished barn-floor, churches were rapidly 
found abounding, and filled with members from every 
people. Those who, in consequence of the delu- 
sions that had descended to them from their ancestors, 
had been fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous 
superstition, were liberated by the power of Christ 
through the teachings and miracles of His messengers. 
And, as if delivered from dreadful masters, and eman- 
cipated from the most cruel bondage, on the one hand 
renounced the whole multitude of gods and demons, 
and on the other, confessed that there was only one 
true God the Creator of all things. This same God 
they now also honored with rites of true piety, under 
the influence of that inspired and reasonable worship 
which had been planted among men by our Saviour. 
But the gratuitous benevolence of God, being now 
poured out also upon the rest of the nations, Corne- 
lius was the first of Caesarea in Palestine, who, with 
his whole house, received the faith in Christ, through 
a divine vision and agency of Peter; as did also a 
great number of Greeks at Antioch, to whom the 
Gospel had been preached by those who were scat- 
tered by the persecution of Stephen. The church 
at Antioch, also, now flourishing and abounding in 
members, and the greatest number of teachers 
coming hither from Jerusalem, with whom Barnabas 
and Paul and many other brethren with them, the 
epithet of Christians first sprung up at that place as 
from a grateful and productive soil." (Book 2 ch. 3). 



64 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER X. 

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 

The vast and long enduring fabric of Christianity 
rests on the Divinity of Christ as its foundation. 
Before Christianity can be proved to be a Divine in- 
stitution, it must be shown that its founder is God. 
The question, then, which we are about to consider, is 
one of the greatest importance, particularly since 
many of this age deny the divinity of the Son of God, 
reproducing the old Arian heresy, which was con- 
demned by the Council of Nice in 325. They tell us 
that Christ was a wise Legislator, a profound Philos- 
opher, a great Reformer, and a most excellent Man ; 
but they grant Him nothing more ; they put Chris- 
tianity on a level with the schools of Philosophy, and 
consequently strip it of its supernatural character, and 
by doing so, take away the motives of observing its 
sublime teachings. Before proceeding further, we 
must stop and examine what the belief of the early 
Christians was in relation to it. St. Ignatius, the 
Martyr, successor of St. Peter in the See of Antioch, 
and who suffered martyrdom in the year 108, attests 
in several places the divinity of Christ. • In his epis- 
tle to the Trallians he says: "Who was truly born of 
God and the Virgin, but not in the same manner." 
Again he says: " The true God, the Word born of the 
Virgin, He, who in Himself contains all mankind, was 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



65 



truly begotten in the womb." In his epistle to the 
Ephesians, he says : " There is one carnal and spirit- 
ual physician, made and not made, God in man, true 
life in death, and both from Mary and from God." In 
his epistle to the Magnesians he says: " Jesus Christ, 
who was with the Father before all ages, at length 
appeared," and immediately after he says: "There is but 
one God, who made Himself manifest by Jesus Christ 
His Son, Who is His Eternal Word." St. Justin, 
the Philosopher and Martyr, who died about the year 
161, says in his Apology; " Christ, the Son of God 
the Father, who alone is properly called His Son 
and His Word, because with Him before all crea- 
tures He existed and is begotten." In his second 
Apology he says : " When the Word is the first-born 
of God, He is also God." In his dialogue with the 
Jew Triphon, he proves that Christ was called the 
Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel in the Old Testament, 
and then concludes by addressing the Jews thus : " If 
you understood the prophets you would not deny that 
He is God, the Son of the only self-existing God." 

St. Ireaneus, a disciple of St. Polycarp and Bishop 
of Lyons, who died about the year 202, writes (adv. 
Haer. L. 3. c. 6): " Neither the Lord (the Father) nor 
the Holy Ghost would have absolutely called Him 
God if He were not true God." Again he writes (Lib. 
4, c. 8): " The Father is the measure, and He is infin- 
nite, and the Son containing Him must be infinite 
likewise." Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher of 
Athens, gives the reason why we say that all things 
were made by the Son of God, in his Apology for the 
Christians, which he wrote to the emperors Antoninus 
and Commodus ; he says : " Whereas the Father and 



66 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



the Son are one and the same, and the Son is in the 
Father, and the Father in the Son, by the unity and 
power of the Spirit, the mind and Word is the Son 01 
God." Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, under the 
emperor Marcus Aurelius, says: "We ought to know 
that our Lord Christ is true God and true man — God 
from God the Father — man from Mary His human 
mother. (Theoph. L. 5 ; allegor. in Evan.) Dionysius of 
Alexandria, who was accused, towards- the end of the 
third century, of denying the consubstantiality of the 
Word with the Father, says : " I have shown that they 
falsely charge me with saying that Christ is not con- 
substantial with God." (Dionys. Alex, apud St. Athan., 
Tome 1, p. 561). 

The great heresy which denied the Divinity of 
Christ, had for its author Arius, an unworthy priest of 
Alexandria. He was born in Libia Cirenaica and 
came tp Alexandria in expectation of obtaining some 
ecclesiastical dignity. 

Being foiled in his attempts to obtain the patriarch- 
ate of Alexandria, he broached the following blas- 
phemous heresy : First " That the Word was not from 
all eternity, but was brought forth out of nothing by 
the Father, and created, the same as one of ourselves. 
Second, that Christ, according to His free will, was of 
a mutable nature, and that He might have followed 
* vice, but that, as He embraced goodness, God, as a 
reward for His goodness, made Him a participator in 
the Divine nature and honored Him with the title of 
the Word, the Son and Wisdom." 

This heresy aroused the zeal and called forth the 
talents of the most eminent doctors of Christianity, 
w T ho, by their discourses and writings, defended the 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUECH. 



67 



Divinity of Christ. The Bishops, dispersed over the 
world, assembled at Nice, in Bethynia, in 325. In that 
venerable assembly were men who had taught the 
Divinity of their Divine Master, not only by their 
words, but proved their belief by the humble and 
mortified lives which they led according to the exam- 
ple given by Christ. Venerable relicts, saved from 
the prisons and torments of their persecutors, 
were there; they were crowned with virtue and bore 
the glorious marks of the tortures which they had 
endured for their profession of the Divinity of Christ 
in the presence of their tormentors ; now they come to 
proclaim it before the whole world. Arius had gained 
some partisans, among whom was a small number 01 
Bishops, who had espoused his errors; these used 
ambiguous language in the Council, to cloak their 
errors and to avoid comdemnation ; but in order to 
detect their subterfuge, and to express the doctrine in 
the clearest light, the Council, using the Greek word 
" 'omoousios " which means of the same substance, 
declared that the Son of God is " 'omoousios " with 
the Father, that is of the same substance with the 
Father. 

This became the test word of Catholic faith, to which 
the Arians objected; but finally all the Arian Bishops 
subscribed to it, except a few who were cut off from 
the Catholic Church. The Council, then, proceeded 
to draw up a profession of faith, which is called the 
Nicene Creed; it is as follows : 

" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 
Creator of all things visible and invisible; and in one 
Lord Jesus Christ, only son of God, born of the 



68 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



Father before all ages ; God of God ; Light of Light ; 
True God of True God ; begotten, not made, consub- 
stantial with the Father, by Whom all things were 
made, both in heaven and on earth; Who for us men 
and for our salvation, came down from Heaven, be- 
came incarnate and was made man; suffered and rose 
again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, 
whence He shall come again to judge the living, and 
the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. " 

The Council then condemned the Arian heresy as 
follows: " And if any say : There was a time when the 
Son was not; He was not before being begotten; He was 
drawn from nothing; or, if any hold that the Son is not of 
the same natttre and substance as the Father, He is mutable 
and subect to changes like a created being; The Holy 
Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them. " 
St. Athanasius, who was at the Council, says in his 
history of Arianism (No. 42), that the profession of 
faith was composed by Osius. The Christian writers, 
as we have seen, from the commencement of Christian- 
ity down to the time of the Council of Nice, taught 
the Divinity of Christ. Over three hundred Bishops 
assembled from every part of the globe and proclaim- 
ed the Divinity of Christ to the Christian world ; it 
follows, then, that it was the belief of Christianity 
from its commencement. 

Moreover, the history of all ages, from the origin 
of Christianity, attest that thousands in the first, 
second, and subsequent centuries sealed their faith in 
this doctrine with theirblood. All that paganism re* 
quired of the Christian was, not to confess Christ as 
God. If the immediate followers of our Saviour had 
not received this doctrine from His divine lips, and 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



69 



had not transmitted it to their descendants, many of 
them and thousands of their descendants would cer- 
tainly not have suffered martyrdom for a doctrine 
which Christ did not teach ; it must, then, be conceded 
that Christ taught His followers that He is God as 
well as man. 



70 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER XL 

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST— HIS MIRACLES. 

Having seen in the preceding chapter that the first 
Christians learned the doctrine of the Divinity of 
Christ from the Saviour Himself, we will now proceed 
to prove it from the miracles, which He wrought while 
on earth, to convince the world that He is God, and 
to induce all men to believe His doctrines in order to 
be saved. But before examining them, it may be well 
to give a brief explanation of what constitutes a mira- 
cle. 

The word miracle comes from the Latin word 
mirari, which signifies to wonder ; for men are accus- 
tomed to wonder at sensible effects or operations 
which are extraordinary and whose cause is unknown. 
Although the sensible effect of a cause may be won- 
derful, extraordinary and beyond human comprehen- 
sion, nevertheless, if the cause is natural, that is, if it 
it is contained within the limits of created nature, 
there is no miracle. Hence any secondary cause, 
that is, a created cause, cannot effect a miracle, because 
a miracle must necessarily be the effect of a primary 
cause ; the primary cause is the Actus Crea?ts^ it is 
God f miracles are, therefore, the effect of the power of 
God. It has generally been supposed by some Theo- 
logians and Philosophers that miracles are contrary 
to the laws of nature, or at least that they suspend 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



71 



them, whereas they neither contradict nor suspend 
them, because it is a natural law that the weaker must 
yield to the stronger. A primary cause is more pow- 
erful than a secondary, because the primary is God ; 
but secondary causes are the powers of creatures ; in 
a miracle, then, God immediately acts, who is the 
Creator; creatures must yield to the power of the 
Creator ; this does not suppose that the power of the 
Creator is either contradicted or suspended, but only 
that something is done which creatures, left to their 
own power, cannot do. A miracle, therefore, shows 
that the Author of nature can do what the creature 
by itself cannot do. 

* In performing a miracle, God can use any agent He 
wishes to carry His supernatural power into effect ; 
but the power necessary is not and can not be that of 
a secondary or a created cause, but His own. The 
creature, therefore, is only an instrument, which He 
may make use of, when through it, He wishes to per- 
form a miracle ; but a miracle does not, necessarily, 
require that God should require any agent. Agents 
have powers of their own ; but they are created and 
subject to the power of the Creator ; being created 
they must be limited ; they (agents) cannot, therefore, 
go beyond the limits of their powers. Good angels 
cannot act on sensible nature, unless by the will and 
command of God ; nor bad o nes, without at least the 
permission of God. Good angels can not, therefore, 
w T ork miracles, unless as ministers of God, and in 
confirmation of the truth, otherwise God would use 
their instrumentality for deception ; but God is truth 
itself; He cannot deceive nor be deceived. Bad angels, 
with the permission of God, may do things w r hich 



72 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



may appear wonderful ; but by these acts they can do 
nothing in confirmation of error, at least, so far that 
the error cannot be easily detected. 

A miracle may now be defined as follows : miracu- 
lura est effectus insolitus sensibilis supeinaturalis; a 
miracle is a sensible unaccustomed and supernatural 
effect ; or, as St. Thomas divines it : " Ilia simpliciter 
miracula dicenda sunt, quae divinitus fiunt praeter or- 
dinem communiter servatum in rebus; Those are 
simply to be called miracles, which take place by the 
divine power beyond the order commonly observed 
in things." In a miracle, then, the effect must be 
sensible, that is, it must fall under the senses ; the 
cause must be above all created nature, therefore, 
supernatural or divine; and must redound to the 
glory of God. Its possibility is evident, because it 
does not involve a contradiction. A possibility means 
that there are«no conflicting attributes in a thing, for 
instance, the whole is greater than any of its parts. 
God can do all possible things because He is Almighty. 

It is necessary to give a short explanation with re- 
gard to the evidence we are about to produce in regard 
to some of the miracles wrought by Christ while on 
earth. There existed at that time an ancient custom 
requiring that all .novel events should be communi- 
cated to the Emperor. Hence Pontius Pilate, the 
Governor of Judea, transmitted to the emperor Tiber- 
ius, in whose reign Christ was born and put to death, 
an account of the circumstances of the death and res- 
urrection of our Saviour. He also, in his report to 
the Emperor, alludes to other miracles wrought 
by Christ. We learn from the fifth chapter of 
the Apology of Tertullian, that when the report of 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



Pilate, concerning the death and resurrection of 
Christ, had reached the Emperor, he convoked the 
Senate, and expressed his wishes that it should be 
decreed that Christ should be numbered among the 
gods. Tertullian does not mention the name of 
Pilate in this chapter; he only says: " Tiberius, there- 
fore, in whose time the name of Christ entered into 
the world, laid before the Senate, with his own vote 
to begin with, things announced to him from Palestine 
in Syria, which had there manifested the Divinity of 
that Person (Christ). The Senate, because they had 
not themselves approved it, rejected it. Caesar held 
by his sentence threatening peril to the accusers of 
the Christians." But in the twenty-first chapter of 
his Apology he mentions Pilate's name. After enum- 
erating a number of miracles wrought by Christ, and 
also His death and resurrection, he says " These things, 
concerning Christ, did Pilate . . . report to Tiberius, 
the Caesar of that day." Hegesippus wrote a history 
of the church, in five books, from the passion of Christ 
down to his own time. His work is lost except some 
fragments. 

Eusebius mentions him in the fourth book of his 
ecclesiastical history in chapters eight aud twenty- 
second. I found a passage of this author given by 
Cornelius Alapide, in his commentary on the twenty- 
eighth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel. The author 
quotes from the acts of Pontius Pilate, an account of 
the death and resurrection of Christ, as follows : 

"Judaeorum principes mihi mentientes asserebant 
Jesum magum esse, et contra legem eorum agere. Ego 
autem credidi ita esse, flagellatum tradidi arbitrio 
eorum. Illi autem crucifixerunt eum, et sepulchro 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



custodes adhibuerunt. Ille autem militibus meis cus- 
todientibus die tertio resurrexit. In tantum enim 
exarsit nequitia Judaeorum, ut darent pecuniam cus- 
todibus, et dicerent : Dicite quia discipuli ejus corpus 
ipsius rapuerunt: sed cum accepissent pecuniam, quod 
factum fuerat tacere non potuerunt ; nam et ilium 
surrexisse testati sunt se vidisse, et se a Judaeis 
pecuniam accepisse. Haec ideo ingessi, ne quis aliter 
mentiatur, et existimet credendum esse mendaciis 
Judaeorum." 

The translation: The chief men of the Jews having 
deceived me, asserted that Jesus was a magician, and 
that He was acting contrary to their laws. I, indeed, 
believed that it was so, and after He had been scourged 
I delivered Him into their hands. But they crucified 
Him and had His sepulchre guarded ; but He rose 
again on the third day, while my soldiers were guard- 
ing the sepulchre. The wickedness of the Jews 
arrived to such a degree that they gave money to the 
soldiers and said: Say that His disciples stole away 
His body; but when they had received the money, 
they were not able to conceal what had happened ; 
for they bore testimony that He had risen, and that 
they saw Him rise, also that they had received money. 
I have, therefore, collected these facts, that no one 
may be deceived otherwise, and that the falsehoods of 
the Jews are not worthy to be believed. (Anaceph- 
lacosi Hegesippus). 

Eusebius, in his ecclesiastical history (Book second, 
chapter second), confirms the statement of Hegesippus; 
he says: "The fame of our Lord's remarkable resur- 
rection and ascension being now spread abroad, 
according to an ancient custom prevalent among the 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



75 



rulers of the nations, to communicate novel occur- 
rences to the Emperor, that nothing might escape him, 
Pontius Pilate transmits to Tiberius an account of the 
circumstances concerning the resurrection of our 
Lord from the dead, the report of which had already 
been spread throughout all Palestine. In this account 
he also intimates that he ascertained other miracles 
respecting Him, and that having now risen from the 
dead, He was believed to be a God by the great mass 
of the people. Tiberius referred the matter to the 
senate, but it is said that th£y rejected the proposition 
in appearance because they had not examined into 
this subject first, according to an ancient law among 
tlie Romans, that no one should be ranked among the 
gods unless by a vote of the senate ; in reality, how- 
ever, because the salutary doctrine of the Gospel 
needs no confirmation and co-operation of men." 

Josephus, the Jewish historian, also bears evidence 
that our Saviour rose from the dead ; he says : " Now, 
there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be 
lawful to. call Him a man, for He was a doer of won- 
derful works, a teacher of such men as receive the 
truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both 
many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was 
the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the 
principal men amongst us, had Him condemned to the 
cross, those that loved him at fiist, did not forsake 
Him ; for He appeared to them alive again the third 
day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 
ten thousand wonderful things concerning Him. 
And the tribe of Christians so named from Him is not 
extinct at this day." (Josephus — Antiquities of the 
Jews, Book xviii.,ch. 3). 



76 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



St. Justin wrote his first Apology in defense of the 
Christians and of the Christian religion to the emperor 
Titus iElius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Caesar Augus- 
tus; to Verissimus, his son, a friend of truth, son of 
Caesar, and adopted son of Pius; to the Secret] Senate; 
and to all the Roman people. He says,number 35 : " But 
Jesus Christ stretched out His hands, and was cru- 
cified by the Jews, who contradicted Him, and denied 
Him to be the Christ ; for indeed, as the Prophet said, 
they mocked Him, and set him on judgment seat, and 
said 'judge us.' But the words, ' They pierced my hands 
and my feet J are a description of the nails that were 
fixed in His hands His feet on the cross, and after He 
was crucified, those who crucified Him, cast 
lots for His garments and divided them among 
themselves ; and that these things were so, you 
may learn from the acts of Pilate." This passage 
confirms the fact that Pilate sent an account of 
our Saviour's sufferings, death, and resurrection, to the 
Emperor ; and that it was preserved in the imperial 
archives. St. Justin does not mention our Saviour's 
resurrection in connection with this passage, but he 
says, in number 21: " He (Christ) was crucified, and 
died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven." It 
can, then, be inferred that this is implied in the above. 
In number 48 he says : " And that it was foretold that 
our Christ should heal all diseases, and raise the dead ; 
hear what was said ; it is as follows-: At His coming the 
lame shall leap like a stag, and the tongue of the dumb shall 
be eloquent, the blind shall recover sight, and the leper shall 
be cleaned, and the dead shall rise and walk about. That 
He performed these things you may easily be satisfied 
from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. " Here we learn that 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



77 



Christ rose the dead to life, and that Pilate reported 
even this to the Emperor. 

Ouintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus, the son of 
a centurian, was born at Carthage, A. D. 160. He had 
studied all the Sciences, and succeeded in each of 
them. Although a pagan by the prejudices of his birth 
and education, he was unable to resist the profound 
impressions made on his soul by the invincible cour- 
age of the martyrs. He became a Christian, and soon 
after addressed his most celebrated Apology to the 
Magistrates of the Roman Empire. Hear what he says 
concerning Christ, His miracles, death and resurrec 
tion, in the twenty-first chapter of his Apology: 

" Whom (Christ), therefore, they had presumed from 
His lowliness to be only a man, it followed that they 
should from His power account a magician ; when by 
a word He cast out devils from men, recovered the 
sight of the blind, cleansed the lepers, strengthened 
anew the sick of the palsy, finally by a word restored 
the dead to life, made the very elements obey Him, 
stilling the storms and walking on the waters, showing 
Himself to be the logos (the Word) of God; that is 
the Word, which was in the beginning, the First-Begotten, 
accompanied by His Power and His Reason, and up- 
held by His Spirit, the same, Who, by a word both did 
and had done all things. But whereas the rulers and 
chief men of the Jews were confounded at His doctrine 
they were so filled with^indignation, chiefly because a 
great multitude had turned aside after Him, that a 
length they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, then 
Governor of Syria, on behalf of the Romans; and by 
the violence of their voices, wrung from him that He 
should be delivered up unto them to be crucified. He 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



had, Himself, also foretold that they would do this. 
This were but a small thing, if the prophets also had 
not done so before ; and at length being nailed to the 
cross, He showed many special signs to mark that 
death of Himself ; He with a word gave up the ghost, 
preventing the office of the executioner. 

" At that moment the light of midday was with- 
drawn, the sun veiling his orb. They thought it, 
forsooth, an eclipse, who knew not that this also had 
been foretold concerning Christ ; when they discover- 
ed not its cause, they denied it ; and yet you have this 
event, that befell the world, related in your records. 
Him taken down from the cross and buried in a sep- 
ulchre, they caused, moreover, to be surrounded with 
great diligence by a guard of soldiers, lest because 
He had foretold that He should rise on the third 
day from the dead, the disciples removing the body by 
stealth should deceive them, though suspecting it. 
But lo ! on the third day, the earth being suddenly 
shaken, and the massive body being rolled away 
which had closed the sepulchre, and the watch being 
scattered through fear, and no disciple being to be 
seen, nothing was found in the sepulchre save the 
grave cloths only of the buried. Yet the chief men 
notwithstanding whom it concerned to spread a wicked 
tale and to draw back from the faith the people, 
their tributaries and dependents, reported that He 
was stolen away by His disciples. For neither did He 
show Himself to all the people, lest the wicked should 
be delivered from their error, and that the faith, which 
reserved unto men reward, should cost some difficulty. 
But He continued forty days with certain disciples in 
Galilee, a region of Judea, teaching them what things 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 



79 



they should teach. After that, having ordained them 
to the office of preaching throughout the world, He 
was taken from them into heaven in a cloud, which 
covered Him ; an account far better than that which 
your Proculi are wont to affirm of your Romuli. 
These things concerning Christ did Pilate, himself 
also already in his conscience a Christian, report to 
Tiberius, the Caesar of that day." 

Many more witnesses could be adduced to prove 
the miracles and resurrection of Christ. In fact, the 
Christians of all ages believed and proclaimed this 
fact, as is evident from the Apostle's creed, which, as 
the testimony of all ages shows, was framed by the 
Apostles of Christ. Moreover, the monuments of all 
the Christian ages proclaim to the whole world that 
Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate and rose 
from the dead on the third day ; even the places where 
He was crucified, buried, rose from the dead and 
ascended into heaven, are pointed out at this day to 
the pilgrim who visits Jerusalem and its environs. 
Among the innumerable witnesses I have selected 
only a few, for the reason, that, besides their own 
testimony handed down from the beginning of Chris- 
tianity to them, they plainly show that even the pagans 
had incontestable evidence of this fact. It may be 
well, however, to consider the nature of the evidence 
adduced : 

First : The witnesses in giving their narratives 
could not have been deceived, particularly in their 
statements concerning the death, resurrection and 
ascension of our Lord, for it is impossible that not 
only they,* but that so many others before them, who 
were of different countries, habits, customs, and who 



so 



THE DESTINY OF MAX AND 



lived at different times could have been deceived. If 
such evidence be rejected, then, we have no evidence 
to establish any fact. 

Second : They could have no object for deception, 
for what else had they to expect, who adhered to the 
standard of Christ, than to be despised, to suffer per- 
secution, and very often death itself for their Christian 
faith. History, too often, well attests that such was 
the lot of many of the first Christians. 

Third : They could not have succeeded in such a de- 
ception, even had they wished, because when anything 
is stated as a fact by a writer, or historian, his state- 
ments are always examined ; and, if he states untruths, 
he is detected and exposed. 

Tertullian and St. Justin tell the Roman world that 
Christ cured the sick, gave sight to the blind, stilled 
the tempest, raised the dead to life, rose Himself from 
the dead, and ascended into heaven. They tell them 
in language of defiance, that they can find the record 
of these facts in their archives, that Pontius Pilate re- 
ported them to the emperor Tiberius. Did a single 
one in the whole Roman Empire, come forward to 
refute, or even to contradict the statement of Tertul- 
lian, or of St. Justin ? If there was such a one, history 
is silent about him. Had their statements been false, 
they would have been refuted; and the authors would 
not only have disgraced themselves before the whole 
Roman Empire, but without doubt, imprisonment and 
death would have awaited them. 

We have seen from the testimony given* above, that 
Christ, besides other miracles He wrought, raised the 
dead to life, and that on the third day after His own 
death, He raised Himself # from the dead. To resusci- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKOT. 



81 



tate the dead, and His own resurrection have all the 
necessary conditions to constitute a miracle, namely, 
the effect produced by the Almighty power of God ; 
God is, moreover, glorified by the manifestation of 
His omnipotent power. Christ, by the very fact of 
raising the dead to life, but particularly, by His own 
glorious resurrection in attestation of His Divinity, 
proved Himself to be God, because an omnipotent 
power is required to perform such acts. 



S2 THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER XII. 

SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN MJND. 

As the church, founded hy Christ, is a society of 
men, it is necessary, before examining what constitutes 
its essence, to consider briefly what are the essential 
elements of society in general, and also, to take a view 
of the human mind. We have only to consider the 
different spheres, through which the mind moves, to 
become convinced that it is unsettled and changeable. 
If Ave take a glance at the political world, we see men 
divided into parties ; each party has different ideas 
with regard to the interests of the State ; not only this 
but the individual members constituting parties disa- 
gree among themselves in relation to matters of vital 
importance to the welfare of the State. Some think 
that one thing is beneficial and should be adopted, 
others entertain a different opinion ; even the same 
diversity of opinions exists among the legislators them- 
selves ; hence the most bitter controversies arise in 
the legislative halls themselves ; scarcely two members 
hold the same view with regard to what is and what is 
not beneficial to the public good. It unfortunately too 
often happens that even some of the legislators consult 
their own interest and that of their friends rather 
than that of the State. If we look at the Philosophical 
world, we find that Philosophers disagree among 
themselves as well as Statesmen; hence the different 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



83 



and conflicting systems of Philosophy. One system 
holds that matter is eternal ; another introduces uni- 
versal doubt, leaving men in uncertainty as to the 
reality of things; another that there are two eternal 
principles, the one the Creator of good, the other of 
evil ; still another that the state is supreme in all 
things, that she has the right to declare and adopt such 
a religion "as in her opinion is most beneficial to her 
interests ; and to make such laws for the church, and 
prohibit such things in the church as she deems useful, 
thus usurping the prerogatives of God Himself. "We 
must obey God rather than men." All revolutions, 
wars, the rise and fall of nations, in all ages, proceeded 
from the operation of the mind of man. Notwith- 
standing the instability and revolutions of the human 
mind, man is not an isolated being, but destined by 
the Author of nature to live in society, because he 
stands in need of many things necessary for his sub- 
sistence, which he cannot obtain unless in society ; in 
as much as the aid of reason is capable of leading 
from universal principles to the knowledge of partic- 
ular things, which are necessary for life. It is then 
impossible for one man to obtain all this knowledge, 
it is necessary that he should live in society, the one 
helping the other, each one discharging his own 
duties ; as for example, one is engaged in agriculture, 
another in the mechanical art, another in medicine, 
etc. Thus says St. Thomas " If it be natural for man 
to live in society, it is necessary that some one should 
direct the multitude, for if many were united, and 
each one did as he thought proper, they would fall to 
pieces, unless somebody looked after the public good; 
as would be the case with the human body ; and that 



84 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



of any other animal, if there did not exist a power to 
watch over the welfare of all the members. In man 
himself the soul directs the body ; and in the soul the 
feelings of anger and concupiscence are governed by 
reason. Among the members of the body there is 
one principal, one which directs all ; as the heart or 
the head." The end of the civil power is to protect 
the life, property and rights of its subjects, also to 
promote the good of the community. But it can only 
act upon society through the medium of laws. A law, 
according to St. Thomas, is a rule dictated by reason, 
the aim of which is the public good, and promulgated 
by him who has the care of the community. A rule 
dictated by reason — rationis ordinate Here, by one 
word, despotism and force are banished ; here is the 
principle, that law is not a pure effect of the will, 
" Quod principi placuit legis habet vigor em ^ is here cor- 
rected. If the life, property, rights etc., of men are to 
be protected in civil society, it is evident that they 
must have some obligations toward other men, or they 
must have laws and obey them. We have seen the 
different discordant elements in the human mind; 
these must, then, be brought into harmony, and must 
be cast, so to speak, into one mold, in all things 
which appertain to the public good. There must then 
be a general rule of conduct in many things ; but a 
rule of conduct can only be effected by laws. Laws 
-presuppose an individual or individuals invested with 
legitimate power to frame them. We have, then, in 
society two essential elements, namely, subjects and 
the principle of governing. The principle of governing 
is authority. It is clear, then, that society is com- 
posed of subjects and a superior. The superior is 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUECH. 



S5 



nothing else than the authority viewed in the concrete 
that is, the authority is residing in some one; subjects 
are the multitude obeying the authority promulgated, 
according to the dictates of reason, the necessary order 
to be observed that society may obtain its end. In 
every society there must, then, be a supreme authority. 
In society there must be uniformity of acts ; there can 
be no uniformity of acts unless the laws are the same 
for all the members ; but the laws must emanate from 
a principle of unity ; there cannot then be more than 
one supreme authority in any society, state or king- 
dom ; two authorities would be conflicting ; no laws 
could be framed ; the order necessary to lead society 
to its end would be destroyed, and consequently 
society itself. But it may be said that the supreme 
authority sometimes governs its subjects unjustly ; 
therefore it is not admissible. This simply shows 
that the supreme power may go beyond the limits 
marked out by the Creator. It must remain within 
the sphere, which the natural and the positive divine 
laws, directly and indirectly given, prescribe, because 
as St. Thomas says, it must govern its subjects accord- 
ing to the dictates of reason ; but human reason 
dictates that the natural and positive divine laws must 
be obeyed, because God is the Author of both. When- 
ever, then, the supreme authority goes beyond the 
limits of its power, it is no longer authority, but des- 
potism. 

It may appear strange to ask the question whether 
society or the state is visible ; but as visibility is one 
of the essential attributes of society, and as it has a 
strong bearing on another question to be considered 
further on, it is proper to show its visibility from its 



86 THE DESTINY OF MAT? AND 

nature. Society must be a visibly organized body, 
because its members must know those who belong to 
it ; they must know that there is a supreme authority; 
laws must be made for the good of all the members ; 
there must be tribunals to protect the rights, to acquit 
innocence, to punish crime, to determine disputes, 
etc.; all this cannot be done in an invisible society; 
besides an invisible society cannot be a society of men 
as is evident. 

Society must be in possession of truths, for it is a 
truth that the state has laws, that the laws are framed 
by certain individuals invested with legitimate power 
to make them, that they are authentic, that they must 
be understood and interpreted according to the mind 
of the legislator or legislators, that the state has an 
authentic constitution founded by proper authority, 
etc. 

We must have a moral certitude of the truths in the 
state; but we can have no moral certitude without 
reliable witnesses ; the witnesses must belong to the 
society or state. Any private witnesses, or individu- 
als are not admissible, because they entertain different 
opinions with regard to many truths in the state; the 
only admissible witness, then, is the supreme author- 
ity ; and the supreme authority is recognized as the 
official witness by every state or society. There must 
be stability in the state for, without it, the order neces- 
sary to keep it tranquil, and lead it to its end, cannot 
be observed. Disputes and controversies often arise 
which must be terminated ; the rights of citizens 
must be protected, and crime must be punished ; but 
all this cannot be effected without a supreme tribunal, 
which takes cognizance of all such affairs, and pro- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



8T 



nounces a final sentence ; otherwise there would be 
no end to strife and discord ; society would be in dis- 
order and would perish. Every society or state must, 
then, have a supreme tribunal. The supreme tribunal 
must be the supreme authority itself, for the members 
constituting it do not act on their own authority, but 
are commissioned by the supreme authority to exer- 
cise its own power. 

Laws are framed to govern subjects, who are 
required to obey them; but they cannot obey them 
unless they know them : they must then be taught 
what the laws are. As the supreme authority makes 
laws for governing its subjects, it must necessarily 
teach them either by itself or commission others for 
that purpose. 

We have seen that society is composed of two ele- 
ments, namely, subjects and a head or a supreme 
authority. It has to discharge various functions; it, 
therefore, must have life to comply with its obliga- 
tions. Its life as a society, or its civil life must ema- 
nate from its head ; there is, therefore, a connection 
between the head and the members, which cannot be 
severed without destroying society itself, for, as we 
have seen, it is in the nature of things that some one 
must look after the public good, or, in other words, no 
society can exist without a supreme authority. It 
cannot be alleged that we are not bound to obey the 
supreme authority if it be wicked, because as long as 
it governs according to the dictates of reason, its vices 
do notinvalidate its official acts. A very wicked judge 
in his official capacity, pronounces a valid sentence, if 
he remains within the sphere of his just jurisdiction. 
If it were otherwise, we could have, at least oftentimes, 



ss 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



no certitude whether the official acts of the officials are 
valid and binding or not; this would create disorder 
in society and lead to its destruction. St. Thomas 
says on this subject, asking whether infidels have do- 
minion or supremacy over the faithful : " That it is 
necessary here to consider that dominion or suprem- 
acy is introduced by virtue of human law ; the distinc- 
tion between the faithful and infidels, is by divine law. 
Divine law, which emanates from grace, does not take 
away human law, which is founded on the law of 
natural reason ; therefore, the distinction between the 
faithful and infidels, considered in itself, does not take 
away the dominion or supremacy of infidels over 
the faithful." Inquiring in another place, whether the 
prince, who has apostatized from the faith, loses, by 
this fact, dominion over his subjects, so that they are 
no longer bound to obey him, he answers : " As has 
been said before, infidelity does not destroy dominion 
itself; for dominion was introduced by the law of na- 
tions which is human right; while the distinction 
between the faithful and infidels is by a divine (right), 
which does not take away the human right." Again, 
when examining if man is obliged to obey another 
man, he says : "As natural actions proceed from nat- 
ural powers, so human operations proceed from the 
human will. In natural things, it was necessary that 
inferior things should be brought into their respective 
operations by the excellence of the natural virtue 
which God has given to superior things. In the same 
way, also, it is necessary that in human things those 
who are superior should urge on the inferior, by the 
force of authority ordained by God. To move by 
means of reason and will is to command ; and as, by 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



89 



virtue of the natural order instituted by God, inferior 
things in nature are necessarily subject to the motion 
of superior things, so also, in human things, those 
who are inferior ought, by natural and divine right, 
obey those who are superior." 



90 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER XIII. 
THE DIVINE AND HUMAN ELEMENTS IN THE CHURCH. 

The errors of many persons, with regard to the 
church, have their origin in the imperfect perception 
of the essential elements of the church founded by 
Christ. They regard her simply as a human institu- 
tion; and can see no divine element in her; hence 
they do not understand how her teachings can be 
considered as infallible. Before showing that there is 
a divine as well as a human element in the church, it 
is necessary to review what has been said with regard 
to the elements which constitute human society. We 
have seen that the essential elements of any society or 
organization are subjects and supreme authority, that 
the supreme authority mast be t he witness of the 
truths in the society over which it presides, that it 
must be the judge of controversies, and the teacher of 
its subjects. If you take away any one of these ele- 
ments, you destroy society itself. But the church 
founded by Christ is a society of men, to be a society 
she must be an organization ; she must, then, as well 
as the state, have laws and a government; but as the 
civil order must have a supreme authority to have 
laws and government, so must she, otherwise she 
could not be be an organization. You tell me that you 
admit that the church is an organization and conse- 
quently has a supreme authority, but that authority is 
Christ, and that you recognize no other. I concede 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



91 



that Christ is the supreme invisible authority of His 
church; but every visible society must have a supreme 
visible authority ; this does not militate against the 
authority of Christ ; for all authority is subject to the 
authority of God. In religious matters, as well as in 
civil, there are different discordant elements in the 
human mind. In the civil order a supreme authority 
is required to harmonize the different conflicting ele- 
ments ; in the spiritual, harmony is likewise required 
in all those things which appertain to the supernat- 
ural end of man ; but it is evident that no such har- 
mony can be produced without a supreme visible 
authority : the history of the human mind of all ages 
teaches this. Moreover, God is the supreme invisible 
head of the civil as well as of the spiritual order; 
He is the Author of both. The civil, then, as 
well as the religious power, comes from God, for as 
St. Thomas. says: " In the first place all power comes 
from God ; for power exists, and all existences come 
from God; power is sovereignty, and God is the Lord 
and Supreme Master of all things; power is a right 
and in God is found the source of all right ; power 
is a moral movement, and God is the universal cause 
of all sorts of movements; power tends towards an 
exalted end, and God is the end of all creatures ; His 
Providence ordains and directs all things with mercy 
and efficacy." 

St. Chrysostom says on this subject, in his 23d hom- 
ily on the epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, as 
follows : " There is no power that does not come from 
God. Is every prince, then, appointed by God ? I do 
not say that ; for I do not speak of any prince in par- 
ticular, but of the thing itself, that is of thejpower 



92 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



itself. I affirm that the existence of principalities is 
the work of divine wisdom, and that to it it is owing 
that all things are not given up to blind chance. 
Therefore it is that the Apostle does not say that there 
is no prince, who does not come from God; but he 
says, speaking of the thing in itself : 'There is no 
power which does not come from God.' " 

We have seen that in the civil order there is a union 
between the head and the members, that the life of the 
members emanates from the head dictating the order, 
according to the dictates of reason, necessary for its 
preservation and for bringing it to its end, that this 
union cannot be destroyed without the destruction of 
.society itself. 

Now as Christ founded a church for the salvation 
of men, He must, then, be the head of it ; not indeed 
the visible but invisible head. Between the head and 
the members there must be a union; hence we have 
two elements in the church, namely, Christ, the in- 
visible head, is the divine element, and the members 
united with that head constitute the human element. 
The life necessary for the members to gain the end 
for which this society was founded, is not natural but 
supernatural, that is they must have the grace, which 
renders them agreeable to God ; the union then be- 
tween Christ and His church is a union of sanctifying 
grace, from which flows a union of charity, which con- 
sists in observing God's laws, for to love God is to 
keep His commandments. These two unions are so 
intimately connected that the one cannot exist with- 
out the other. Moreover, Christ selected a certain 
class of men, whom He commissioned to teach His 
doctrines to convey the means of salvation to others, 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



03 



and to appoint others to the sacred ministry, as they 
had b^en appointed, so that the work which He has 
commenced on earth may be perpetuated to the end 
of time. We have, then, an ecclesia docens as Theolo- 
gians call it, or a church teaching. As Christ insti- 
tuted this ministry in His church there must be a 
union between Him and the church teaching besides 
the union mentioned above. The union between 
Christ, the invisible head, and the members of His 
church, commenced to exist as soon as the church 
was founded, and must continue to exist as long as 
He has a church on earth, for it must be a living body 
of men ; but its life must come from Christ the invisi- 
ble head. If you separate Christ from the members,, 
you destroy the life of the whole body, then He has 
no church on earth because no society can exist with- 
out a head with which it is united, and from which it 
receives its life; you would, therefore, by separating 
the head from the members, destroy the whole fabric 
of Christianity. 

The divinely commissioned teaching element, united 
with the supreme visible authority of the churchy 
teaching officially faith and morals, is the organ of the 
Divine Element ; the Divine Spirit giving it life, and 
directing it to its destined end. The Divine Element, 
or Christ, the invisible head, is inerrable, because God 
can neither deceive nor be deceived; so, also,the human 
is inerrable, because it cannot exist without the 
Divine ; as long as Christ has a church, so long must 
the two elements remain united. The human element 
would, indeed, be errable if it could be separated from 
the Divine; but as this separation can never take place 
it must be infallible in teaching faith and morals. 



94 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



The church is composed of a body and soul. The 
body consists of all those who make external pro- 
fession of her doctrines, who are under her jurisdiction 
and in communion with her. It cannot be inferred 
from this that all within her domain are just. The 
soul of the church comprises all those who are inter- 
nally united with God by sanctifying grace, by which 
they lead a supernatural life, and are enabled to per- 
form works meritorious of eternal life. Although 
some members may not be united with Christ, their 
invisible head, by sanctifying grace, nevertheless that 
does not exclude them from belonging to the body of 
the church. 

The life of the civil order consists in its existence ; 
the means by which it is preserved, are the observance 
of the order necessary for its preservation. If a mem- 
ber destroys that order, or in other words, if he does 
not discharge the duties necessary for the preservation 
of society, he is a dead member adhering to a living 
body like a dead limb on a living tree; but he still 
belongs to the body until separated by imprisonment, 
e xile or death ; so also in the church. If a member 
destroys the order ordained by God, by the commission 
of sin, he is not connected with Christ by sanctifying 
grace, and consequently has not supernatural life, 
which is necessary for salvation; this excludes him 
from the soul of the church, but iiol from the body ; 
like the member of the civil order, or like the dead 
limb on a living tree, although dead to God by sin, 
he nevertheless adheres to the body ot the church 
until separated by excommunication. 

W e have seen that in the civil order the validity or 
nullity of the official acts does not depend on the 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, 



95 



righteousness or unrighteousness of the legitimate 
official; it is the same in the church. It has been said 
that there is a union of sanctifying grace between 
Christ and His society or church, that that union 
does not exist between Him and those who do not 
observe the order ordained by Him to gain their super- 
natural end, that they belong to the body of the church 
but not to the soul. This union is not essentially 
necessary for the validity of the official acts, on the 
part of those who are legitimately appointed to teach 
the truths of supernatural revelation, and to convey 
the ordinary means of salvation to men. They are 
instruments in the hands of God for the benefit of 
others ; they are channels through which God conveys 
the ordinary means of salvation; if any should be 
wicked, their vices cannot affect the gifts which God 
conveys through them. 

As the rays of the sun are not polluted by falling on 
impure objects/so God's gifts are not the less valuable 
by being conveyed through an impure channel. 

If the unworthiness of the minister of God rendered 
his official acts null, then, the ordinary means, which 
God has ordained for the salvation of man, would be 
uncertain^ but uncertain means cannot lead to a cer- 
tain end; then, God would leave man in uncertainty 
whether he would be saved or lost ; but as God wishes 
the supernatural end of man, He must infallibly fur- 
nish the means; but as God furnishes the ordinary 
means through His ministers ; and as the means must 
be certain to gain the end, the unworthiness of the 
minister can therefore neither destroy them nor ren- 
der them uncertain. 



96 



THE DESTINY OF MA.N AND 



As the civil order woulcl be destroyed if the wicked- 
ness of its officials rendered their official acts null, so 
would be the spiritual, and consequently the church, be- 
cause if the validity or nullity of the official acts of the 
minister validly ordained, according to the directions 
of Christ, depended on his worthiness or unworthiness, 
we could not know who Christ's ministers are, because 
we cannot know, at least with certainty, who is in the 
state of sanctifying grace and who is in the state of 
mortal sin. If it were otherwise, the ministry insti- 
tuted by Christ, would be invisible, the government of 
the church would be invisible ; but a visible organized 
body must have a visible ministry and a visible gov- 
ernment, otherwise it can have no existence. The 
doctrine, then, that the validity of the official acts of 
the ministry instituted by Christ for His church, re- 
quires that the minister must be united with Him by 
sanctifying grace or that he must be a righteous man 
before God, destroys the whole society or church. I 
do by no means wish to defend unworthy ministers* 
the church, according to her laws, removes them from 
their sacred office ; but I have spoken of the truth as 
it is; nor could I do otherwise in writing on this 
subject. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



97 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 

The visibility of the church is generally admitted in 
theory, but denied in practice, by all who ignore her 
supreme authority and who acknowledge no other 
authority than their private understanding of the Bible 
and human reason. The resistance to the authority of 
the church includes the necessity of unlimited private 
judgment, and of making the understanding the su- 
preme judge of divine faith and morals. Time has 
shown the melancholy consequences of such a doctrine. 
If you deprive the human mind of authority of some 
kind or other, on what can it depend ? Given up to 
every form of opinion, it is forced into the gloomy path 
which led the ancient Philosophers to chaos. 

Reason and experience are witnesses of this flic;;. 
If you substitute private judgment for the authority of 
the church, then all the great questions concerning 
God and man remain unsolved. The mind is in dark- 
ness and seeks in vain for light to guide it safely to 
the harbor of truth ; confused by the teachings of a 
hundred schools, all differing among themselves, and 
not being able to give any light on the subject, it must 
relapse into that state in which Christianity found it, 
and from which it has drawn it with great difficulty. 
That the church must be visible is found in the fact 
that Christ assumed human nature, that He appeared 



98 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



in the visible form of man, that He conversed with 
men and taught them His divine doctrines. The me- 
dium of conveying His doctrines was a visible one. 
Even while on earth, He employed visible envoys 
for the same purpose. Man had to have intercourse 
with man ; man had to teach man. Before His ascen- 
sion into Heaven, He gave a divine commission to 
men to teach other men His doctrines ; they traversed 
every part of the world, taught His doctrines, founded 
churches and appointed prelates to govern them. 
Thus has Christianity come down to us. How can it 
then be said that the church is invisible ? If it were 
invisible we could neither see it nor know it, nor 
could we have teachers'^ from whom we could learn 
the truths of supernatural revelation. 

Then again, there could be no authority, no govern- 
ment and no laws ; the religious controversies, which 
arise among men could not be terminated : then, there 
could be no unity of faith, but only a thousand differ- 
ent conflicting opinions. This would destroy the 
whole Christian order. But it is asked:— Cannot God 
communicate his truths and commandments to men 
through an invisible medium ? undoubtedly He can 5 
but the question is not what God can do, but what He has 
has done. He has instituted a church; and in it through, 
a visible medium of a divinely commissioned ministry 
to teach men, He conveyed His truths to them. Well, 
after all, I do not recognize your divinely commis- 
sioned teachers ; I have reason as well as they ; I can 
judge for myself as well as they; I have the Bible, 
which is God's W ord : when I read it God gives me 
internal light to understand it — to know the truths it 
contains. But my dear friend: — that question has al- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



99 



ready been disposed of in the forepart of this work. 
You have no right to consider the Bible as authentic, 
accurate or inspired, until you prove it to be such, 
and, consequently, you have no right to quote it as the 
Word of God. An infallible au'.aority is- required to 
settle that question, which you do not recognize. As- 
sertions are very cheap ; they can be purchased in the 
market for a farthing a bushel. Proof is required. 
As to your mind being illuminated by God, so that 
when you read the Bible you see the truths it con- 
tains, I might ask ; how is it that scarcely two men 
have the same illumination when they read the Bible? 
but I will let Dr. Brownson explain the doctrine of il- 
lumination. 

After showing that the Bible cannot be the witness 
of divine and supernatural revelation, on the ground 
that the catalogue of the sacred books cannot be es- 
tablished unless by an infallible authority, he says: 
" Some of them have proposed a third answer, which 
we may denominate Private Illumination, because 
it is a revelation made for the special benefit of him 
who receives it, and not a revelation to be communi- 
cated by him for the faith or confirmation of the faith 
of others. It is contended for under various forms, 
but the more common form and the one which princi- 
pally Concerns us in this discussion, is the Calvinistic 
or what is usually denominated Christian Experience. 
This concedes the defectiveness of the logical evidence 
of the fact of revelation, and pretends that it is sup- 
plied by a certain interior illumination from the Holy 
Ghost in the fact of regeneration, whereby the believer 
is enabled to know by his own experience the truth 
of the doctrines he believes or is required to believe. 



100 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



The famous Jonathan Edwards was a great advocate 
for this, and sets it forth with considerable ability in 
his Treatise on the Affections, and especially in a ser- 
mon on The Reality of the Spiritual Light preached at 
Northampton in 1734. It is insisted on, we believe, 
by all our Protestant sects that claim to be Evangeli- 
cal. Indeed, this, in their estimation, constitutes the 
chief mark by which Evangelicals are distinguished 
from non-Evangelicals. 

" That there is a christian sense, so to speak, — inter- 
nal tradition, as it is called, to distinguish it from the 
external, — which belongs to Christians, and which 
makes them altogether better judges of what is chris- 
tian truth than are those who are out of the pale 
of Christendom, and that the regenerate, the elect, 
those who belong to the soul of the church, have 
a clearer perception, a more vivid appreciation, of the 
truth, beauty, grandeur, and worth of christian faith 
than have the unregenerate, we of course very distinctly 
and cheerfully admit. We also admit, and contend, 
that ' faith is the gift of G-od,' not merely because it is 
belief in truth which God has graciously revealed, as 
our Unitarian friends apparently maintain, but because 
no man can believe even now that the truth is revealed 
without the aid of divine grace, that is to say, without 
grace supernaturally bestowed. Faith is a virtue 
which has merit : but no virtue possible without the 
aid of divine grace has merit, — that is merit in relation 
to the reward of eternal life. The grace of faith is 
absolutely essential to the eliciting of the act of faith. 
So far we recognize our Calvinistic brethren as ortho- 
dox. 

" But wherein lies the necessity of this grace, and 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



101 



for what is it needed ? Not to supply the defect of evi- 
dence, but to incline the will. Unbelief is a sin, and a sin 
of no small magnitude ; but this sin is not in the inetl- 
lect, for sin is predicable only of the will. Yet, if 
the evidence of a given doctrine were insufficient to 
convince the intellect, there could be no sin in the 
will's refusing to believe it. 

" No man is to blame for not believing what is not 
infallibly evidenced to his understanding. The sin is 
in refusing to believe what is so evidenced ; for such 
refusal can result only from moral repugnance to the 
truth, or perversity of the will, which withholds the 
man from the contemplation of the truth and consider- 
ation of its evidence. God has made a revelation, 
and given infallible evidence that He has made it, and 
men refuse to believe it because they have a moral 
repugnance to it. Herein is the sin of unbelief. The 
grace of faith is needed not to strengthen the evidence 
nor even to open the eyes of the mind to its complete- 
ness, but to overcome this repugnance, and to incline 
the will to believe. Here, in the region of the will, 
divine grace is indispensable to eliciting the act of 
faith. 

" But the view which makes the grace of faith nec- 
essary to supply the defect of logical evidence cannot 
be admitted. If the grace bestowed in fact of regene- 
ration be necessary to supply the defect of evidence, 
it follows .that prior to regeneration there is no suffi- 
cient evidence for believing. But where there is no 
sufficient evidence for believing, the refusal to believe 
is not a sin. Therefore, prior to regeneration, unbelief 
is not a sin. The obligation to believe does not begin 
till the evidence be complete. The unregenerate, 



102 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



then, are under no obligation to believe, and do not in 
any manner sin by not believing. This is evidently 
not the christian doctrine, for God commands all 
men to repent and believe in His Son. 

" But the fact of regeneration, according to our 
Calvinistic brethren, consists preeminently in the 
communication of the grace of faith and they would at 
once deny the reality of the conversion, if there were 
not both habitual and active faith. There is, accord- 
ing to them, no admissibility of grace. From which it 
follows, that, after regeneration unbelief is impossible. 
Before regeneration it is possible, but not a sin. 
Therefore unbelief is never a sin, — a most consoling 
conclusion to all infidels and misbelievers. Yet the 
New Testament makes want of faith in Jesus Christ, 
or what is the same thing, the rejection of the Son, a 
ground of condemnation. 

" In another form, the doctrine of private illumina- 
tion is made to mean not merely the confirmation of 
the believer's faith in a revelation previously made 
and propounded for his belief, but the medium of the 
revelation itself. It regards all external revelation, 
all that may be called historical Christianity, as unnec- 
essary, and teaches that each man has, by grace, 
the infallible witness in himself that the spirit of truth 
promised by Christ to His Apostles to lead them into 
all truth, is in every man, and has been in every man 
born into the world, from Adam to the present mo- 
ment, and is in each man an infallible teacher, reveal- 
ing and confirming to each man all the truth which 
concerns his spiritual state and destiny. We say, by 
grace, for we do not here speak of the doctrine of our 
modern Transcendentalists, which, though often con- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



103 



founded with the view we have given, the Quaker 
view, is yet quite distinguishable from it. The Tran- 
scendental doctrine excludes all grace, all that is. 
supernatural; and assumes that man, by virtue of his 
natural union with the Divinity, is able to apprehend 
intuitively all the spiritual truths that concern him. 
This, with a Transcendental felicity of expression, has 
been denominated ' Natural-supernaturalism.' But 
this is only another way of stating the doctrine 
refuted under the head of the sufficiency of reason as 
the vis intellective or principle of intuitive knowledge.. 
' Xatural-supernaturalism' is a barbarism and involves 
a direct contradiction. Either the truths attained are 
attained by the natural exercise of our natural powers 
or they are not. If not, the Transcendental doctrine 
is false, for then the knowledge of them would be su- 
pernatural. If they are, then they are not supernatural 
at all. Transcendentalism, in point of fact, admits no 
supernatural order. Its adherents, following the sub- 
limated nonsense of that profound opium eater and 
literary plagiarist, Coleridge, define supernatural to 
be supersensuousj and because by science we evidently 
can attain to what is not sensuous, they sagely infer 
that we are able to know naturally the supernatural. 
Just as if what is naturally attained could be super- 
natural, either as the object known, or as the medium 
by which it is known. Just as if nature could not in- 
clude the supersensuous as well as the sensuous, as 
if the soul were not as natural as the body, an angel 
as man. 

" But this ' natural supernaturalism' which makes 
the fortune of Carlyle, Emerson, Parker, and we know 
not of how many German dreamers, is nothing but a 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



Transcendental way of denying all supernatural reve- 
lation, and its refutation does not belong to the present 
discussion. It is intended to account for the phenom- 
ena presented by the religious history of mankind, 
without the admission of the supernatural or gracious 
intervention of Almighty God, and will receive some 
attention when we come to defend Christianity against 
unbelievers. We have no concern with it now, for at 
present Ave are defending the church against heretics, 
not infidels. The Quaker view is theoretically, though 
perhaps not practically, distinct from this Transcen- 
dental natural-supernaturalism . It does not assume 
that the supernatural is naturally cognoscible, nor that 
the supernatural is merely the supersensuous. It ad- 
mits the supernatural order, and contends that the 
witness in every man is distinct from human nature 
and human reason, and is in the proper sense of the 
term supernatural. 

Now this witness, called " the light within," either 
enables us to see intuitively the truth, or it merely 
witnesses to the fact of revelation. If the first, it is too 
much ; for it would imply that the truth is matter of 
knowledge and not of faith, contrary to what we have 
proved. Moreover, it would imply that man is blest 
with the beatific vision in this life, and sees and 
knows God intuitively, which is not true, for no man 
seeth God, or can see Him and live. If the second, 
then, to the fact of what revelation does it witness ? 
To the revelation which God has made us through His 
Son Jesus Christ ? Does it witness to this by an in- 
ward perception of the truth of the matter revealed ? 
or by simply deposing to the fact that God revealed it ? 
Not the first, because that would make truth ievealed 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



105 



a matter science. Then the second. But of this we 
demand proof. Do you say that the spirit beareth 
witness to the fact ? This may perhaps do for you, but 
what is it to me? How will you prove to me that it 
does so witness, and that the spirit witnessing in you 
is veritably and infallibly the spirit of God ? Do you 
allege the spirit is in every man testifying to the same 
fact, and proving itself to each man to be really and 
truly the infallible spirit of God ? I deny it, and 
millions deny it with me. What have you to oppose 
to our denial ? Do you admit our denial ? Then you 
abandon your doctrine. Do you say our denial is 
false ? Then also you abandon your doctrine ; for you 
admit that we err, and therefore cannot have in us an 
infallible teacher. If I deny, T deny by as high author- 
ity as you affirm ; and what reason, then, can you give 
why your affirmation must be received rather than my 
denial? Again: How do you prove that every man 
has this infallible witness ? From the external revela- 
tion by passages from the Holy Scriptures ? Then you 
reason in a vicious circle ; for you take the inward 
witness to prove the Scriptures and then the Scrip- 
tures to prove the witness. From immediate revelation 
to yourself? Then you must prove that you are the 
recipient of such revelation; which you can do only by 
a miracle, tor a miracle is the only proper proof of 
such a fact. But do you abandon the ground that it is 
the external revelation to which the witness deposes, 
and contend that it is rather the medium of a revela- 
tion made solely to the individual, than the witness to 
a revelation made and propounded for the belief of all 
men in common ? Then we must remind you that it 
is] nothing to the purpose. Assuming it's reality, it 



106 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



can availflonly each man separately ; nothing to a 
common belief and be no ground for crediting a com- 
mon revelation, or for making a public or external 
profession of faith. 

But the revelation^to which we are seeking a witness 
is not a new revelation, not a private revelation which 
Almighty God may see proper to make to individuals, 
but a revelation already made, and propounded for 
the belief of all men. This is the revelation to be 
established; and since your private revelation does 
not establish this, or, if so, only by superseding it and 
rendering it of no value (for it can prove it even to the 
individual only by its being seen to be identical with 
what the individual receives without it), it evidently 
cannot be the witness we are in pursuit of. And this 
is the common answer to the alleged private illumina- 
tion whatever its form. • It is valid only within the 
bosom of the individual, andean be alleged in support 
of no common or public faith; therefore, can be no 
Avitness in any disputed case. It may be a private 
benefit, or may not be. It is a matter not to be spoken 
of, and a fact never to be used, when the question con- 
cerns anything but the individual himself. The faith 
we are required to have is a faith propounded to all 
men, a public faith, .and must be sustained by public 
evidence, by arguments, which are open to all, and com- 
mon to all. We must, therefore, reject this third answer 
as inappropriate and insufficient. " (Brownson's Quar- 
terly Review, April 1845). 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



107 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 

We cannot form any conception of a society desti- 
tute of harmony because a general rule of conduct is 
required, which must necessarily produce concord. 
But this presupposes unity, or a supreme authority 
which must be one. In the destruction of harmony is 
involved the non observance ot laws ; if the laws are 
not complied with, order in society will be destroyed, 
and consequently society itself. But the church 
founded by Christ is a society of a higher degree of 
perfection than the civil, because the end of the civil is 
merely natural, that is it is only within its province to 
procure civil or temporal happiness for its subjects; 
but the end of the church or of the society founded by 
Christ is supernatural. Its divinely appointed teach- 
ers are required to teach men 'the truths of divine 
revelation and to instruct them as to their obligations 
towards their Creator, so that, by complying with 
these requirements, they may gain their supernatural 
end. The very nature of the church, then, requires 
unity. 

The unity of the church may be considered under a 
threefold aspect, namely; she must have unity of faith,, 
unity of government and unity of means. The ques- 
tion is not to be considered here what the truths of 
divine and supernatural revelation are; it is sufficient, 



108 



THE DESTINY OF MAX AjS t D 



in this part of our investigation, to bear in mind that 
Christ revealed the truths of faith. If you deny this, 
contrary to the testimony of all ages, then you do not 
admit that Christ made a church at all, for without 
truths and facts no society or church can exist. 

Truth is that which is; it is the harmony in things, 
the idea of this harmony exists in the Divine Intellect 
from all eternity; therefore, truth is eternal and immu- 
table. Although there are many distinct truths, 
nevertheless, in as much as they cannot contradict each 
other, form only one truth. Moreover, truth has its 
.source in unity — in the eternal and supreme unity of 
God. God cannot contradict Himself ; He is the First, 
the Eternal Truth ; therefore, the truths of divine rev- 
elation must harmonize, for if one would contradict 
the other, then, the same thing would be and not be, 
which is an absurdity ; this would destroy divine rev- 
elation. God cannot be the author of absurdities. If 
it were otherwise the harmony in God and His unity 
would be destroyed, and consequently His existence. 
The creature must then give full assent to the truths 
of divine revelation, when they are sufficiently evi- 
denced, otherwise there would be collision with the 
veracity of God, which is an enormous crime. It fol- 
lows, then, that divine faith is not a matter of opinion. 
The assent, therefore, to all the truths of divine revela- 
tion constitutes the unity of faith in the church. 

There are different discordant elements in the mind 
of the Christian society, as well as in that of the civil, 
which must be harmonized in all things appertaining 
to the supernatural end of man. There must, then, be 
a general rule of conduct for all the members, emana- 
ting from the divine law, and from the authority 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



109 



established by Christ to govern and direct His church. 
It belongs to the office of the church to watch over the 
eternal welfare of her children, to direct them in the 
path of rectitude, to admonish the sinner, and as far as 
she ca,n, to avert him from his career of crime, to apply 
the remedies left by Christ, to expel the refractory from 
her communion, to appoint the time and place for the 
worship of God, etc. 

All this cannot be done without laws ; she must, 
therefore, have a legislative power. The natural law, 
which is divine as well as the positive divine, requires 
that some time must be set apart for the worship oi 
God ; but it does not specify any particular time. The 
ceremonial law set apart Saturday to be sanctified as 
the Lord's day. But as Christianity does not recog- 
nize the ceremonial law, the church passed a law sub- 
stituting. Sunday. The church has no power to make 
purely temporal laws; but she has the power to legis- 
late concerning all temporal goods devoted to the 
service of God. The pope made his laws for the gov- 
ernment of his own states, until he was despoiled of 
them, in the capacity of a civil prince; they were not 
church but civil laws, and, as such, were only intended 
for and binding on the subjects of his states. 

It is true that there may be local church laws for 
different provinces, as circumstances may require, but 
that neither destroys nor disturbs the harmony of the 
general laws of the church, for the inferior legislator 
must have power from the supreme authority to legis- 
late; he can neither pass any law contrary to the 
general laws of the church, nor dispense from any 
general law of the church without power from the 
supreme authority. If a divine law is embraced in an 



110 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



ecclesiastical law, neither he nor the supreme authority, 
can dispense from the divine law embraced in the 
^ecclesiastical. 

In the state the supreme authority grants to cities 
:and incorporations the privilege of making la-^S for 
their special governments ; they are nevertheless sub- 
ject to the laws of the state like other citizens. This 
neither destroys nor disturbs the harmony of the laws 
of the state, nor does it destroy the uniformity of the 
citizen's acts nor the unity of the state. Hence, also, 
in the church, though there are and may be local laws 
for some provinces, as circumstances may require, the 
unity remains. But it may be objected that some of 
the members violate the laws ; therefore, there can be 
no unity. How many violate the laws of the state, yet 
the unity of the state, by such violations is not des- 
troyed, nor is the unity of the church by the violation 
of her laws. The means are divine faith, that is a full 
assent to all the truths which Christ revealed. The 
form of worship, which He prescribed, hope and 
charity — charity, which is to keep God's command- 
ments. The submission to the authority of His church. 
The sacraments, prayer, etc., etc. These are common 
goods left by Christ for the sanctification and salva- 
tion of all men ; they are one and the same for all. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



Ill 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

We have seen that supreme authority is one of the 
essential elements of civil society, that no government 
ever existed or can exist without it. There were vari- 
ous civil governments from the commencement of 
the world ; these governments or civil organizations 
were confined within certain limits of space and time. 
It is true that sometimes they were composed of differ- 
ent nationalities ; but by uniformity of laws emanating 
from the supreme authority directing the actions of 
its subjects, the different nationalities were cast into 
one mold, and their ideas were centered in the supreme 
authority. But the most of these organizations con- 
sisted only of single nationalities ; yet with all the 
essential elements, they were, comparatively speaking, 
but of short duration ; the longest period of some of 
them was but six or seven hundred years. They had, 
moreover, the means to sustain themselves, such as 
armies, wealth, and any number of persons to carry 
their will into execution. Where are now the Babylo- 
nian, the Persian, the Roman and many other empires? 
They upheld their authority with a strong hand but 
now they are known only to the student of history. 
We have, moreover, seen the ever variable state of the 
human mind. 

Men differ in Politics, in Philosophy, in Religion 



112 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



unless they recognize a supreme, an infallible authori- 
ty. How can all these discordant elements of the human 
mind be brought into harmony with regard to all 
those things which appertain to the means for gain- 
ing our supernatural end without a supreme authority. 
The church which Christ founded, is a society of men 
of every country under the sun. Her first members 
were persons of every part of the Roman Empire, 
which then extended its way over the almost then 
known world. It embraced Greeks, Africans, Gauls 
and Syrians^; in fine, nearly all the nations had been 
conquered by the Roman arms. These different 
nations were permitted, to a great extent, to retain 
their national religion and customs. They were 
pagans of every kind ; their habits and manners were 
pagan. Paganism taught that those devoid of the 
goods of this world are the most miserable of men ; it 
placed them almost on a level with the slave ; that 
true happiness consists in having great possessions 
and honors ; that it is base to bear injuries or insults, 
and that not to resent them is cowardice. It had 
most magnificent temples; its worship was of exquis- 
ite grandeur ; its priests were most gorgeously robed 
The worship and religious customs of paganism were 
handed down by the tradition of ancestry of many 
generations. "All this was calculated to make the 
strongest impression, not only on the individual, but 
on the whole people. 

The tradition of ancestry is something extremely 
sacred in the eyes of a nation. It is with difficulty 
that a people can divest themselves of the idea that 
their ancestors were in error ; and still more difficult 
to abandon the customs of ages. Moreover, as pagan- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 113 



ism gave free scope to the indulgence of the vilest 
passions of the human heart, it could not without 
help from heaven disentangle itself from its fetters. A 
life of the mortification of the passions of the human 
heart, is painful and a warfare ; men must be induced 
by strong motives to embrace it ; paganism afforded 
no such motives ; but its teachings were the reverse. 
In the temples of paganism the basest and most revolt- 
ing passions had their altars] and their gods ; the. 
worshipers collected themselves around these altars 
and offered their obscene and abominable tributes of 
adoration. Virgil, Homer, the old legal codes of 
Greece and Rome, and the religious books of all 
idolatrous nations bear evidence to this fact. Among 
the Christians, Tertullian's Apology may be consulted 
throughout. It was not only necessary to bring the 
minds of the first, who had enrolled their names on 
the banner of Christianity, into christian harmony, 
that is, to require them to believe all the truths 
revealed by Christ, some of which are beyond human 
comprehension, but also, to divest themselves of their 
idolatrous practices. He, who was impure, had to be- 
come chaste ; the vindictive had to learn to bear Avith 
injuries and forgive them for God's sake ; the mind 
had to be detached from mundane objects and had to 
be directed to the Eternal Good ; unlawful honors had 
to be renounced ; and what required no small sacrifice 
was to abandon the traditions of ages and consider them 
false. Traditions of ages, wmether true or false, held 
up with the most gorgeous pomp of religious worship, 
exert a powerful influence over the human heart : 
they are often sufficient to triumph over the strongest 
and most obstinate resistance. There is something in 



114 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



the hearts of men, which inclines them to sympathize 
with all that approaches them. How strong must then 
have been the influence of the traditions of the ages of 
idolatry united with the basest passions of the human 
heart! The struggle must have been immense! What 
has been said of those, who entered first into the 
church from idolatry, applies to subsequent idola- 
trous nations, who embraced Christianity. The church 
had not only to deal with pagans, but also, with 
those within her own bosom. These men had their 
passions as well as those who were not within her 
domain ; the passions had to be restrained and sub- 
jected to reason. The most subtile and perhaps the 
most dangerous passion is intellectual pride. Men 
are easily lead to believe that they surpass others in 
intelligence and learning ; hence the opinions of 
others are" often despised; they yield only to their own. 
They extol human reason ; they raise it almost to a 
divinity, and make their offerings on its altar. It is 
their only guide through the stormy sea of this world 
-to eternity ; they forget that it is circumscribed by 
very narrow limits ; hence the difficulty of submitting 
to the supreme authority of the church. But no one 
can deny that the society founded by Christ, or the 
church, has had, in all ages, men illustrious for sci- 
ence. The history of the Fathers of the first ages of 
the church is the history of the most learned men in 
Europe, Asia and Africa; study the works of Tertul- 
lian, of St. Athanasius, of St. Irenaeus, of St. Augus- 
tin, of Clement of Alexandria and of a host of others 
and you will find the truth of what is asserted. 

After the barbarians had destroyed ancient civiliza- 
tion, those, who had preserved the remains of ancient 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 115 



knowledge, were churchmen. In modern times no 
branch of knowledge can be pointed out, in which a 
great number of Catholics have not figured in the 
first rank. Thus there has been during eighteen 
hundred years, an uninterrupted chain of learned men 
who were Catholics, that is, men who were united in 
the profession of the doctrines taught by the Catholic 
Church. The Catholic Church has recognized a su- 
preme authority in the person of her visible head, 
from the commencement of her existence ; these men 
were, then, subject and submissive to the supreme 
authority of the church. But it is asserted that the 
first ages of Christianity did not recognize a visible 
supreme authority. Further on the contrary will be 
shown. 

I admit that it is not new in the history of the 
human mind that a doctrine, more or less reasonable, 
may be professed for a certain time by a certain num- 
ber of learned and enlightened men ; this Ave have 
seen in the schools of Philosophy, both ancient and 
modern. But, as Balmes says : "For a creed to main- 
tain itself for many ages, by preserving the adhesion 
of men of learning of all ages, times, and of all coun- 
tries — of minds differing among themselves on other 
points — of men opposed in interests and divided by 
rivalries, is a phenomenon new, unique, and not found 
anywhere but in the Catholic church. It has been 
and still is the practice of the church, while in one 
faith and doctrine, to teach unceasingly — to excite 
discussions on all subjects — to promote the study and 
examinations of the foundations on which faith itself 
reposes — to scrutinize for this purpose the ancient 
languages, the monuments of the remotest times, the 



116 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



documents of history, the discoveries of scientific ob- 
servations, the lessons of the highest and most analytic 
sciences, and to present herself with generous confi- 
fidence in the great lyceums, where men replete with 
talents and knowledge concentrate, as in a focus, all 
that they have learned from their predecessors, and all 
that they themselves have collected; and nevertheless 
we see her always persevere with firmness in her faith 
and in the unity of her doctrines ; we see her always 
surrounded by illustrious men, who, with their brows 
crowned with laurels of a hundred literarv contests, 
humble themselves tranquil and serene before her, 
without fear of diminishing the brightness of the glory 

which surrounds their heads We have observed 

those terrible elements of dissolution, which have ac- 
quired so much force in modern society ; we have seen 
with what fatal power they destroy and annihilate all 
institutions, social, political and religious, without 
.ever succeeding in making a breach in the doctrines of 
Catholicity — without altering that system, so fixed and 
so constant. Is there no conclusion to be drawn from 
all this in favor of Catholicity ? To say that the church 
has done that which no school or government or soci- 
eties or religions could do, is it not to confess that she 
is wiser than everything human? and does it not clearly 
prove that she does not owe her origin to human 
thought and that she is derived from the bosom of the 
Creator? 

•'This society formed, you say, by men — this govern- 
ment, directed by men, has endured for eighteen 
hundred years ; it extends to all countries ; it address- 
es the savage in the forest, the barbarian in his tent, 
the civilized man in the most populous cities ; it reck- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



117 



ons among it's children, the shepherd clothed in skins 
the laborer, the powerful nobleman ; it makes its laws 
heard alike by the simple mechanic at his work, -and 
by the man of learning in his closet absorbed in the 
profoundest speculations. This government has 
always had, according to M. Guizot, a lull knowledge 
of its actions and its wishes ; it has always been con- 
sistent in its conduct." 

This Christian society,, moreover, did not extend its 
sway over the world by physical force ; but during 
the first three hundred years of its existence, it had to 
suffer the most relentless persecutions ; paganism had 
been determined to obliterate the very name of Chris- 
tianity from the face of the earth. The struggle of 
Christianity was a struggle of blood and martyrdom 
during the first three centuries of its existence. * Well 
might Tertullian exclaim : " Cruciate, torquate, dam- 
nate, conterite nos ; sanguis est semen Christianorum." 
"Torment us, torture us, condemn us; the blood of 
Christians is the seed of new Christians." In another 
place he says that we are but of yesterday ; yet we fill 
all places; your cities, towns, etc.; we only leave to 
you your temples. 

We have seen that men of different countries, of 
different manners, habits, dispositions, interests, and 
of different forms of paganism embraced Christianity. 
This Christian organization has continued for eighteen 
hundred years amid the rise and fall of mighty kingdoms 
and empires. Laws, manners, habits, customs, lan- 
guage and almost everything else have changed during 
this time, except the church ; the storms and fury of 
eighteen hundred years could not succeed in destroy- 
ing her. If it is impossible to have a civil organiza- 



118 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



tion, limited by place and time, without .a supreme 
authority,it necessarily follows that the society founded 
by Christ, or the church, must have a supreme author- 
ity,because it is utterly impossible that so many different 
minds of all ages and nations could have been united 
without it. The supreme authority is, therefore, . one 
of the essential elements of the church. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



119 



CHAPTER XVII. 
THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH— ST. PETER AND 
HIS SUCCESSORS IN THE ROMAN CHURCH. 

We have seen from the nature of the church that'she 
must have a visible supreme authority ; we will now 
proceed to show its existence and exercise in the Ro- 
man Church. St. Peter, after having governed the 
church at Antioch for about seven Years, directed his 
steps toward Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire^ 
and fixed his See there. But the adversary objects 
and brings forward the 13th verse of St. Peter's first 
epistle, chapter fifth, to prove that he wrote that 
epistle from Babylon. The followiug is the verse: 
" The church, which is in Babylon, elected together 
saluteth you; and so does my son Mark." Beza, 
Veritus, Sadulius, Velenus and many others, to defend 
their false doctrine, namely, that St. Peter was never 
in Rome, and that the Roman Pontiffs are not the 
successors of St. Peter, assure \ us that St. Peter 
has written his first epistle in Babylon. There were 
two Babylons, the one in Assyria, and the other in 
Egypt. The Jews were expelled from Babylon in 
Assyria by Caius Caesar. (See Josephus, AntiquL 
book 18 ch, 9). St. Peter had been a Jew before he 
became a follower of Christ ; he could not then have 
written any epistle from Babylon in Assyria ; besides* 



120 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



history nowhere informs us that any Christians were 
at that time in Babylon of Assyria, nor even an 
Apostle. Babylon in Egypt, according to Strabo, 
(Liber 17) was an obscure place, a castle or fortress. 
(" Castellum "). St. Peter would not have, therefore, 
fixed his See there ; and consequently, his first epistle 
could not have been written in that place. Moreover, 
St. John says, in his Apocalypse, (chap. 17, v. 9) that 
Babylon was built on seven mountains or hills. This 
Babylon can, then, neither be that of Assyria nor that 
of Egypt, for neither of them was built on seven hills 
or mountains ; but Rome is the only city that has 
been built on seven mountains or hills; he, therefore, 
designates Rome under the name of Babylon, because 
pagan Rome was then the sink of every abomination, 
just as Ancient Assyrian Babylon had been. As 
Babylon of old had persecuted the Jews, so Rome, in 
the time of the Apostles, persecuted the Christians ; 
hence she was properly designated Babylon, on ac- 
count of her vices and cruelties. 

St. Clement of Rome was a contemporary with the 
Apostles ; he is mentioned by St. Paul, and was or- 
dained by St. Peter at Rome, as Tertullian testifies in 
the thirty-second chapter ot his book on Prescriptions. 
St. Clement says, in his letter to the Corinthians, num- 
bers 5 and 6, that St. Peter and St. Paul suffered 
martyrdom under his own eyes. 

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, when led to martyr- 
dom, about the year 107, wrote to the Romans, and beg- 
ging them not to prevent his martyrdom by their 
prayers. He says : " I do not command you as Peter 
and Paul ; they were Apostles, I am a condemned 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUECH. 



121 



man." (Epis. ad Rom). This shows that the Romans 
had been instructed by both Peter and Paul. Tertul- 
lian says in his book on prescriptions (chapter 36): 
" But if thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome, where 
we also have an authority close at hand. What a 
happy church is that ! on which the Apostles poured 
out all their doctrine with their blood; where Peter 
had a like passion with the Lord ; where Paul has for 
his crown the same death as John (The Baptist)." Let 
us hear Eusebiiu on this subject: " The divine word 
having thus been established among the Romans, the 
power of Simon (Magus) was soon extinguished and 
destroyed together with the man. So greatly, however, 
did the splendor of piety enlighten the minds of Peter's 
hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but once, nor 
receive the unwritten doctrine of the Gospel of God, 
but they persevered in every variety of entreaties to 
solicit Mark, as the companion of Peter, and whose 
Gospel we have, that he should leave them a monu- 
ment of the doctrines, thus orally communicated, in 
writing .... But Peter makes mention of Mark in the 
first epistle, which he is also said to have composed at 
the same city of Rome, and that he shows this fact by 
calling the city by an unusual trope, Babylon. i Thus 
the church at Babylon, elected together with you, 
salutes you, also my son Marcus.' (1 Pet. 5, 13)," 
(Ecc. His. book 2, chap, 15). In another place he 
says : ' This fact is recorded by the Roman Tertullian, 
in language like the following : 'Examine your records. 
There you will find that Nero was the first that perse- 
cuted this doctrine, particularly then when, after sub- 
duing all the East, he exercised his cruelty against all 
at Rome. Such is the man of whom we boast as the 



122 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



leader in our punishment. For he that knows who he 
was, may know also that there could scarcely be any- 
thing, but what was great and good, condemned by 
Nero." Thus Nero, publicly announcing himself as 
chief enemy of God,was led on in his fury to slaughter 
the Apostles. Paul is therefore said to have been 
beheaded at Rome, and Peter to have been crucified 
under him. And this account is confirmed by the fact* 
that the names of Peter and Paul still remain to this 
day. But likewise a certain ecclesiastical writer, Caius 
by name, who was born about the time of Zephyrinus, 
Bishop of Rome, disputing with Proclus, the leader of 
the Phrygan sect, gives the following statement re- 
specting the place where the earthly tabernacles of the 
aforesaid Apostles are laid : ' But I can show,' says he, 
' the trophies of the Apostles. For if you will go to 
the Vatican, or Ostian road, you will find the trophies 
of those who have laid the foundation of this chureh < 
Thus, likewise, you, by means of this admonition, have 
mingled the flourishing seed that had been planted by 
Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both these 
having planted us at Corinth, likewise instructed us ; 
and having in like manner taught in Italy, they suf- 
fered martyrdom about the same time.' This testimony 
I have superadded in order that the truth of the history 
might be still more confirmed." (Eccl. His. book 2, 
chap. 25). 

Calvin, with every disposition to deny the fact that 
St. Peter w r as in Rome, blushed to oppose the testi- 
mony of all the ancients. (Inst, liber 6). Cave says : 
" We intrepidly affirm, with all antiquity, that Peter 
was at Rome, and for some time resided there/' He 
adds : " All, both ancient and modern, will , I think, 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE C HITECH. 123 



agree with me that Peter may be called Bishop of 
Rome in a less strict sense, in as much as he laid the 
foundation of this church, and rendered it illustrious 
by his martyrdom." (Sac. Apostol. S. Petrus). 

Peter was not only Bishop of Rome in a less strict 
sense, but in every sense. Dr. Schaff says: " It is the 
universal testimony of tradition that Peter labored in 
Rome and there suffered martyrdom under Nero." 
(History of the Apostolic Church, page 362). 

St. Irenaeus and Eusebius tell us that the Roman 
church was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul ; 
but it cannot be inferred from this that Peter was not 
strictly Bishop of Rome. It is evident that St. Paul 
was not united with St. Peter in the episcopal office, 
although he labored with him in his apostolic charac- 
ter, because the ancients never called him Bishop of 
Rome; but they gave that title to St. Peter, alone, 
Moreover, according to the discipline of the church 
from the commencement, one Bishop alone could be 
the head of one church or diocese. But it is said : 
"Although it may be conceded that St. Peter was in 
Rome and suffered martyrdom there ; it does not fol- 
low that the popes are his successors, particularly, 
since we are assured that there were no popes in the 
early ages of Christianity." By the word pope is meant 
the Bishop of Rome, and by Bishop of Rome that he 
is not only Bishop of that place, but also Bishop of the 
entire Catholic Church. 

We will now proceed to show the regular success- 
ions of the Roman Pontiffs from St. Peter to Pius the 
Ninth. Eusebius says : "In a work written by a 
certain one of these authors against the heresy of 
Artemon, which Paul of Samosata again attempted to 



124 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



revive among us,, there is a narrative well adapted to 
the history we are now investigating. The writer, not 
long since, in refuting the heresy mentioned, which 
asserts that Christ is a mere man, since its leaders wish 
to broach as if it were the ancient doctrine, besides 
many other arguments that he adduces in refutation of 
their impious falsehood,he gives the following account: 
i For they assert,' says he, ' that all those primitive 
men, and the Apostles themselves, both received and 
taught these things as they are now taught by them, 
and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until 
the times of Victor who was the - thirteenth Bishop of 
Rome from Peter. But that from his successor, Zephy- 
rinus, the truth was mutilated. And perchance what 
they say may be credible were it not that the Holy 
Scriptures contradict them, and then, also, there are 
works of certian brethren older than Victor's time, 
which they wrote in defense of the truth, and against 
the heresies then prevailing. I speak of Justus and 
Miltiades, and Tatian and Clement, and many others, 
in all which the Divinity of Christ is asserted." (Eccl. 
His. book 5, ch. 28). 

From this we see that Victor is the thirteenth suc- 
cessor of St. Peter in the Roman church, and that 
Zephyrinus is the successor of Victor. St. Irenaeus 
came from the East to Gaul, about the middle of the 
second century; and became Bishop of Lyons in 177; 
he gives the list of the Roman Pontiffs from Peter 
down to his day ; he says : " To this church (Roman) 
on account of a more powerful principality it is nec- 
essary that every church, that is, those who are on 
every side faithful, should agree, in which (church) 
always by those, who are on every side, has been pre- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



125 



served that tradition which is from the Apostles. The 
blessed Apostles, therefore, having founded and built 
up that church, committed the sacred office of the 
episcopacy to Linus, of whom Paul makes mention in 
his epistle to Timothy. But to him succeeded Ana- 
cletus, and after him, in the third place from the 
Apostles, Clement obtains that episcopate, (Clement) 
who had also seen the blessed Apostles, and conferred 
with them, and who had yet before his eyes, the famil- 
iar preaching and the tradition of the Apostles ; and 
not he alone, for there were at that time many still 

alive, who had been instructed by the Apostles 

But to this Clement succeeded Evaristus, and to Evar- 
istus, Alexander. Next to him, thus the Sixth from 
the apostle, Sixtus was appointed ; and after him Tele- 
sphorus, who also suffered a glorious martyrdom: next 
Hyginus ; then Pius ; after whom was Anicetus. To 
Anicetus succeeded Soter and to him Eleutherus, who 
now, in the twelfth place, holds the office of the epis- 
copate from the Apostles. By this order and by this 
succession, both that tradition which is in the church 
from the Apostles, and the preaching of truth have 
come down to us." (Adv. Haeres L. 3, c. 3. n. 2 — 3). 

St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis in Africa, lived in the 
fourth century. In about the year 384 he wrote against 
Parminian, the Donatist Bishop. In his second book 
against Parminian he says: ' The first amongst the 
marks (of the church) is the chair, wherein unless a 
Bishop sit, the second which is 'the angel ' cannot be 
added: and we have to see who filled the chair and 
where he filled it; if thou doest not know, learn; if 
thou knowest, blush ; to thee ignorance cannot be 
ascribed; it follows therefore that thou knowest. To 



126 



THE DESTINT OF MAN AND 



err knowingly is a sin; for the ignorant are sometimes 
pardoned. Thou canst not, then, deny but thou 
knowest that in the city of Rome, on Peter first was 
the episcopal chair conferred, wherein might sit of all 
the Apostles the head, Peter ; whence also he was 
called Cephas; that in that one chair unity might be 
preserved by all; nor did the other Apostles each 
contend for a distinct chair for himself; and that 
whoso should set up another chair against the single 
chair, would at once be 'a schismatic and a sinner. 
Peter, therefore, first filled that individual chair, which 
is the first mark (of the church)." He then gives the 
catalogue of Peter's successors until he comes down 
to his own time ; then he says: " Siricius, who is now 
our colleague, with whom the whole world, by the 
mutual exchange of circular letters, is concordant 
with us in one fellowship of communion You, who 
wish to claim to yourselves the holy church, tell us the 
origin of your chair." (De Schism. Donat. L. 2, n. 2 — 4). 
St. Augustin became Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, in 
395. He says in his epistle to Generosus (col. 130): 
" If the order of Bishops succeeding to each other is to 
be considered, how much more securely and really 
beneficially do we reckon from Peter, to whom, bear- 
ing a figure of the church, the Lord says : " Upon 
this rock I will build my church." He, then, gives the 
list of Peter's successors until he comes to Anastacius, 
who became Pope in 398. Eusebius gives the list of 
the successors of St. Peter in the See of Rome through 
his Ecclesiastical History; the last given by him is 
Miltiades, who became Pope in 310 and died in 314. 
The list is continued by historians down to our time. 
Consult Rhorbacher's Universal History of the Church. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 127 



We have already seen from the preceding evidence 
that the Roman Bishop is the Bishop of the Bishops. 
Besides many more witnesses might be adduced to 
bear testimony to this fact ; but the strongest proof 
that the supreme authority is vested in the Roman 
Pontiffs is the exercise of their jurisdiction over the 
whole church in every age. Hear Mr. Allies while 
still an Anglican : "precedency or prerogative of Rome 
to whatever extent it reached, was certainly not either 
claimed or granted merely, because Rome was the 
imperial city. It was explicitly claimed by the Bishop 
of Rome, and freely conceded by others to him, as in 
a special sense, successor to St. Peter. From the very 
first, the Roman Pontiff seems possessed himself, as 
from a living tradition, which had throughout pene- 
trated in the local Roman Church, with a conscious- 
ness of some peculiar influence he was to exercise 
over the whole church. This consciousness does not 
show itself here and there in the line of Roman Pon- 
tiffs, but one and all seemed to have imbibed it from 
the atmosphere which they breathed. That they were 
the successors of St. Peter, who himself sat and ruled, 
and spoke in person, was strongly felt and consistent- 
ly declared by those Pontiffs who preceded the time of 
Constantine as by those who followed. The feeling of 
their brother Bishops, concerning them, may have 
been less definite, as was natural ; but even those who 
most opposed any arbitrary stretch of authority on 
their part, as St. Cyprian, fully admitted that they sat 
in the See of St. Peter, and ordinarily treated them 
with the greatest deference. This is written so very 
legibly upon the records of antiquity, that I am per- 
suaded any one, who is even very slightly acquainted 



128 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



with them, cannot with sincerity dispute " (The 
Church of England cleared, etc.) 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



120 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE EXERCISE OF THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH- 

St. Clement was appointed Bishop of Rome in the 
year 91 and governed the church till the year 100. 
During his pontificate the church of Corinth was dis- 
turbed by a small number of its members, who, being 
jealous of the reputation of certain virtuous priests,, 
had attempted to depose them. The case was referred 
to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff. The persecu- 
tion which was raging at Rome, about this time, 
prevented immediate action in the case on the part of 
the Roman Pontiff; but as soon as an interval of 
peace was granted an effort was made by Clement to 
restore harmony. He dispatched messengers with a 
letter to the church of Corinth, who were charged to 
use every exertion to re-establish order. He says in 
His letter; "It is shameful, my beloved, it is most 
shameful, and unworthy of your Christian profession 
that it should be heard that the firm and ancient 
church of the Corinthians, on account of one or two 
persons, is in a sedition against the priests. . . . Who 
then amongst you is generous? Who that is com- 
passionate? Who that is filled with charity? Let 
him say: 'If sedition and strife, and schism be through 
me, I will go and depart wither soever ye please, an d 
do whatsoever is appointed by the multitude; only let 



130 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



the flock of Christ be at peace with the constituted 
priests Do ye, therefore, who laid the founda- 

tion of this sedition, submit yourselves to the priests, 
and be instructed unto repentance. Bending the 
knees of your hearts, learn to be subject, laying aside 
all proud and arrogant boasting of your tongues ; for 
it is better tor you to be found in the sheep fold of 
Christ ; little and not approved, than, thinking your- 
selves above others,to be cast out of His hope." (Epis. * 
i ad Cor. No. 47 — 54). This event took place about 
the year 96. The tenor of this letter may not satisfy 
some,that supreme authority was claimed by Clement, 
because he only uses persuasion ; but it must be un- 
derstood that excited passions can, with difficulty, 
be subdued by urging abstract views of power ; but 
we cannot account for the conduct of Clement unless 
"by reference to his universal charge. St. John, the 
Apostle, was then still living ; he resided at Ephesus, 
and was much nearer the scene of strife; yet Clement 
used his authority to establish order ; it follows then 
that Clement claimed the right to exercise jurisdiction 
over the whole church. Although the epistle bears 
the name of the church of God, which is in Rome, 
nevertheless it is St. Clement's as is attested by St.* 
Irenaeus, a writer of the next age (L. 3 adv. Har. c. 3) ; 
and the title is sufficiently accounted for by the an- 
cient customs of assembling the clergy on occasions 
of great importance ; and acting with their advice and 
concurrence. 

In the second century we have still stronger 
proofs of the exercise of the supreme authority 
of the Roman Pontiff, which he vigorously used 
-against some of the Asiatic churches in rela- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 131 



tion to the celebration of Easter. Some of the 
Asiatic churches celebrated Easter on the same day 
on which the Jews celebrated their Passover, whereas 
the Roman and the western churches always celebrated 
it on Sunday, the day of our Lord's resurrection. It 
is alledged that St. John, the Apostle, permitted this 
custom on account of the Jewish converts in the 
eastern churches ; he could easil}- do so, as it was not 
a matter of faith but of discipline. But after the custom 
had prevailed for some time, some of the Asiatic Bish- 
ops thought that they were bound to observe it by a 
divine law ; this is clear from the reply of Polycrates, 
Bishop of Ephesus, to the Roman Pontiff, Victor; for 
he says : " We must obey God rather than man." This 
is an error against faith, for no divine law exists 
which commands that Easter should be celebrated on 
the same day on which the Jews celebrate their Pass- 
over. Pope Victor condemned this error and 
endeavored to bring the Asiatics back to the purity of 
the faith. St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, in Asia, 
came to Rome to visit Pope Anicetus, a little after the 
middle of the second centurv, to consult with him 
concerning ecclesiastical matters. As the Easter 
question had been agitated at that time in some of the 
eastern churches, it can be easily inferred that one 
of the main objects the Bishop had in view in 
visiting Pope Anicetus, was to effect a reconciliation 
between the eastern and western churches, with regard 
to the day on which Easter should be celebrated. All 
Historians teach that the Pope endeavored to induce 
Polycarp to conform with the custom of the Roman 
and the western churches ; but as a matter of prudence 
he did not enforce his authority, after having shown 



132 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



that the Asiatic custom was not of divine precept. 
(See Eusebius Ecc. His. book ch. 14. Also Rhorbach- 
er under Pope Anicetus). 

Toward the close of the second century Pope Victor 
resolved to procure uniformity, even though he should 
resort to severe measures, if necessary; for the custom, 
simply a point of discipline, had become a doctrinal 
question with some of the Asiatics. Victor would no 
longer tolerate this error ; and consequently convoked 
a council at Rome of all the Bishops of Italy. It was 
there solemnly decided that Easter should be celebrat- 
ed on Sunday, a day consecrated, from the time ot the 
Apostles, to the memory of the glorious resurrection 
of Christ ; and the future observance of the Jewish 
usage, in the celebration of Easter, was interdicted. 
Victor sent these proceedings to the Bishops of all the 
provinces of the Catholic world. By his orders Theo- 
philus of Csesarea assembled the Bishops of Palestine; 
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, those of Gaul ; Bacchylus, of 
Corinth, those of Achaia ; Demetrius of Alexandria 
those of Egypt ; and Palma d' Amastris, those of 
Pontus. These assemblies unanimously adopted the 
views of the Pontiff, and the letters, which they ad- 
dressed to him, all agree on the necessity of conform- 
ing to the custom of the Latin church for the 
celebration of Easter. But Polycrates, the Bishop of 
Ephesus, who had been appointed by Victor to preside 
in the council of proconsular Asia, as might have been 
toreseen, and his assembled Bishops were not disposed 
to abandon their old custom. When Victor perceived 
that Polycrates and the Bishops in the council were 
refractory, he determined to use the severest measures, 
namely, to cut them off from the communion of the 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 



133 



Catholic church. St. Irenseus, and many more Bish- 
ops besides, wrote to Pope Victor and besought him 
not to cut off whole churches from the church of God; 
even Polycrates did not deny this power of the Pope, 
but implicitly admitted it, as can be seen from his 
letter to the Pope ; but he tried to fortify himself be- 
hind his error, namely, that it was of divine precept to 
follow his custom — that Ave must obey God rather 
than men. (See Eusebius Eccl. His. book 5 ch. 24). 
The Pope commanded the Bishops throughout the 
Catholic world to hold councils in their provinces ; 
they obeyed and submitted to his teaching in relation 
to the day on which Easter was to be celebrated, 
except Polycrates and his party. If the Pope had not 
been recognized as the head of the church, and as the 
supreme Judge of faith and morals, the other Bishops, 
particularly Polvcrates and those who adhered to him, 
would naturally have said ; " we are Bishops as well 
as you. What right have you to interfere with our 
custom and our churches? We do not recognize you 
as our superior ; you have therefore no right to dic- 
tate to us on what day we are bound to celebrate 
Easter; we have moreover the sanction of St. John, 
the Apostle; his authority outweighs yours." The 
opposite party would have only been too glad to have 
made such a protest, had there been any ground ; but 
no such a protest was made ; therefore it is evident 
that they acknowledged the Pope to be the head of the 
church, and recognized him as the supreme Judge of 
faith and morals. 

A controversy arose in about the middle of the third 
century concerning the validity of baptism administer- 
ed by heretics. The custom prevailed in. some of the 



134 THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 

African churches to re-baptize all those coming from 
all the different sects ; even those who had been bap- 
tized in the name of the Three Persons of the Blessed 
Trinity. Agrippinus, the Bishop of Carthage, sanc- 
tioned this custom, in a council held in the early part 
of this century. Cyprian, his successor in the See of 
Carthage, espoused the doctrine of Agrippinus. The 
particular councils Synnada and Iconium in Phrygia 
had decided that the baptism administered by heretics 
was null, by the mere fact that it was eonferred out of 
the church. Pope St. Stephen, the First immediately 
wrote to the Bishops of the neighboring provinces, 
not to communicate with those who re-baptized here- 
tics. The Bishops of Numidia consulted Cyprian 
concerning this question. In the name of thirty-two 
Bishops assembled in council at Carthage, he replied, 
that following the doctrine of his predecessor, none 
could be baptized out of the church ; though he admit- 
ted that the custom had generally prevailed not to 
re-baptize heretics. On the following year (256) 
Cyprian held another council of seventy-one Bishops 
at Carthage ; he decided again that the baptism con- 
ferred by heretics was null. He sent the acts of this 
council to Pope Stephen : " It is especially to you," 
he said, " that we should send all, that more closely 
concerns the sacerdotal authority, or the union and 
dignity of the Catholic Church. We have judged that 
they, who have been defiled by the profane water of 
heretics,ought to be baptized when they return to the 
church ; and that laying on of hands is not sufficient 
to give them the Holy Spirit." This was the state of 
the question when it reached the tribunal of the 
Roman Pontiff. Two councils of Phrygia, two of 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 135 

Africa, and a considerable number of Bishops, of all 
the provinces, had openly embraced the error. Pope 
Stephen's reply to Cyprian and his colleagues was that 
there must be no innovation ; but we must adhere to 
the doctrine, which has been handed down ; and par- 
ticularly, to that of the church of Rome, as regards 
the baptism of heretics as valid, if it has been conferred 
in the name of the Three Divine Persons. (Stephen 
quoted by Cyprian epis 74). The Pope moreover 
threatened with excommunication such as would con- 
tinue the practice of re-baptizing. It is true that this 
controversy was not brought to an immediate close,, 
after Stephen had condemned the error. It was 
finally brought to a close about the year 314. Those 
of the African Bishops, who had hitherto followed the 
custom of re-baptizing heretics, abandoned it and 
conformed to the teaching of Pope Stephen ; thus 
union and harmony were established. The opposition 
does not militate against the supreme authority of the 
Roman Pontiff in teaching faith and morals, and in 
governing the universal church. The Africans were 
simply disobedient and refractory against legitimate 
authority. We find many instances of this in the 
state, nevertheless, no one will say that the state has. 
no supreme authority, because some rebel against it.. 
Their insubordination served to prove the supreme 
authority of the church ; and their unconditional sub- 
mission to the teachings of Pope Stephen shows from 
the very fact, that they recognize the supreme author- 
ity of the Pontiff. 

Cyprian himself teaches in his book De Unitate 
Ecclesiae, that the primacy is given to Peter, that the 
church may be set forth as one, and the see (chair) as. 



136 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



one. Again he says: " He, who holds not this unity 
of the church, does he think that he holds the faith ? 
He who strives against and resists the church: — he 
who abandons the chair ot Peter, upon whom the 
church was founded — does he feel confident that he is 
in the church? " 

Doctor Nevin, in the Mersersburg Review, Nov. 
1852, says in relation to this controversy : " How came 
Stephen to assert such authority, in opposition to 
whole provinces of the church, east and west, if it were 
not on the ground of previously acknowledged pre- 
rogative and right. Or how could the pretension do 
more than call forth derision, if no such ground existed 
for it in fact, in the general mind of the church ? It 
is easy to talk of his presumption and pride, and of a 
regular system of usurpatiou kept up with success on 
the part of the Roman Pontiffs generally. But that is 
simply to beg the whole question in dispute. The hy- 
pothesis is too violent. It destroys itself. Stephen 
was neither fool nor knave ; and yet he must have been 
both on a grand scale, to play the part he did here out 
of mere wanton ambition, usurping powers to which 
he himself wellknew,as all the world knew, besides, he 
had no lawful claim whatever. Both Cyprian and Fir- 
milian are themselves witnesses, in fact, that a true 
central authority did belong to the Bishop of Rome. 
What they complain of is its supposed abuse, they feel 
the force of it very plainly in spite of themselves. This 
is just what makes them so restless under its exercise. 
Had it been mere false pretension, they could have 
afforded to let it pass by them as the idle wind. They 
knew it, however,to be more than that. Then, again, 
it turned out in the end that Stephen was, in truth, 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



137 



right. His judgment proved to be, with proper dis- 
tinctions, afterwards, the real voice of the Catholic 
church, and remained in full force down to the present 
time." 

Pope Hyginus, in the second century, condemned 
the errors of Valentinus, and of Cerdonius and of 
Marcian. (See Darras Eccl. His. vol. i, p. no). Bar- 
castle observes: "Even the heresiarchs themselves did 
not appeal to any other tribunal, which they certainly 
would have done, had there been any possibility o f 
calling the authority of the sovereign Pontiff in ques- 
tion." (Barcastle i, 143). Towards the end of the 
same century Pope Victor, besides condemning the 
erroneous practice with regard to the celebration of 
Easter, excommunicated the heresiarch Theoditus and 
his adherents. (Darras vol. 1, p. 163). Pope Corne- 
lius, in the third century, convoked a council at 
Rome; he and the .council anathematized Novation 
and his errors. The Pope gave notice of the fact to 
all the churches; and the schismatics were overwhelm- 
ed by the powerful unanimity opposed to them. (Dar- 
ras vol. 1, p. 248). 

In 261, Pope Dionysius convoked a council at Rome, 
in which he at once condemned the two opposite but 
equally impious errors, of those, who held the doctrine 
of Sabellius, and of those who said that the Word had 
been created, made or formed, and that the Word was 
not consubstantial with the Father. (Darras vol. 1, 
p. 270). Besides consult Natalis Alexander's Univer- 
sal History of the Church concerning all these points. 

From the year 366 to 384 the episcopal see of Anti- 
och had three claimants. St. Jerome had then been 
in the East ; he wrote thus to Pope Damasus : " The 



138 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



church here is rent into three parts ; each of which is 

eager to drag me to itself. Meanwhile I cry 

aloud; if any one is united to the chair of Peter he is 
mine. Melitus, Vitalis and Paulinus, all assert that 
they adhere to Thee. I might assent if only one of 
them declared this ; as it is, either two or all of them 
are deceivers. Wherefore, I beseech Your Holiness, 
by the cross of the Lord, — that, as you follow the 
Apostles in honor, you may follow them in merit — 
you would, by your letter make known to me with 
whom I ought to hold communion." (Ep. 16). 

But then we are assured that the supreme authority 
of the church resides in a general' council, and not in 
the Pope. There can be no general council unless 
the Pope is at the head of it. In order that the de- 
crees passed by a council be binding they must be 
approved of by the Pope. The popes presided over 
all general councils, either in person, or by persons 
deputed by them ; and approved of the acts, though 
not always of all of them. The supreme authority of 
the church, then, resides in the Pope. If it only re- 
sided in a general council, then the church would have 
no supreme authority except at long intervals; then 
nothing could be decided or determined during these 
intervals; this is not admissible, not founded in fact, 
and not in the nature of any society much less in that 
of the church, as we have seen. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



139 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE 
CHURCH. 

Supreme authority is not only an essential element 
of the church, but it must, moreover, be endowed with 
the prerogative of infallibility. Every society or 
state must be in possession of the truths appertaining 
to it, but society or the state recognizes no witness of 
such truths except its supreme authority. Now, when 
Christ founded His church, He deposited the truths 
of divine revelation in her. But w r e cannot infallibly 
know what the truths of divine revelation are without 
a witness who can testify with infallible certitude to 
them. 

As civil society recognizes no one as the competent 
witness of the truths appertaining to it except its su- 
preme authority; so, also, must the supreme authority 
of the church be the witness of divine and supernatural 
revelation. The supreme authority of the church can 
take nothing from the deposit of faith, nor can it add 
anything to it ; the deposit must remain as it came 
from the hands of Christ. It can only declare what is 
contained in the deposit. Though a new declaration 
is made, it is a declaration of an old truth contained in 
the deposit of faith as given by Christ. Thus, for ex- 
ample, we find that Pope Dionysius declared that 
Christ is God, consubstantial with the Father. This 



140 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



declaration was made in the third century ; this was 
just as true before the declaration as it was afterwards; 
it was simply stating that this truth is contained in 
the deposit of divine revelation. So it is with all the 
other definitions made by the supreme authority of the 
church. 

We have seen that, even in the first century, the 
Roman Pontiffs were in possession of the supreme au- 
thority of the church, and that they exercised it in the 
first and subsequent centuries. Their possession must 
be considered valid until it be shown that they have no 
valid title to it. It has, moreover, been recognized as 
valid by the first, second, third, and all subsequent 
centuries. Besides, the testimony adduced in favor of 
its validity and the claim of universal jurisdiction by 
the Roman Pontiffs were never contested. If the Ro- 
man Pontiffs have not received the supreme authority 
of the church from Christ, it remains for the adversa- 
ry to show how, when, and where they obtained it ; 
until he will do so, by historical proofs, their title and 
possession remain and must remain valid. To such, 
then, who would dispossess the church of her supreme 
authority, we may say : Who are you, and whence do 
you come ? By what right do you cut down our wood ? 
Bv what authority do you turn the course of our wa- 
ters ? . Why do you attempt to remove our landmark ? 
This is our possession ; we have held it of old ; Ave 
held it first; we have a sure title down from the first 
owners themselves, whose estate it was. We are the 
heirs of the Apostles. As they provided by their own 
testament, as they committed itjn trust, as they have 
adjured, so we hold it. 

Again, the supreme authority of the church con- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



141 



demned, in all ages, errors against faith ; but it is 
evident that it cannot condemn error unless it knows 
them ; it must furthermore know the truths against 
which the errors are directed; it must, therefore, be 
the witness of divine and supernatural revelation. 
Moreover, by condemning errors against faith, it ex- 
ercised the office of a supreme judge. Besides, it has 
taught men, in all ages, the truths of supernatural rev- 
elation; hence, the supreme authority of the church is 
the witness, the judge and the teacher of faith and 
morals, when it acts in its official capacity. 

But as Christ founded a church, and as the supreme 
authority of the church discharges the functions of this 
triple office, it follows that in the official discharge of 
these duties it must be infallible. 

A fallible church is one, which either deceives its 
members, or, at least, has the power to deceive them, 
with regard to all the truths, which God supernatural- 
ly revealed, and which must necessarily be known in 
order that man can obtain his supernatural end, or, in 
other words, that he may be saved. By deceiving 
them it leads them astray; or even by the very power 
of deceiving them, it exposes them to be deceived 
in the most important- affair, namely, in the affair 
of the salvation of their immortal souls. 

God cannot be the Author and Founder of such a 
church, or authority. When God commissions an 
authority to teach men the truths of supernatural 
revelation, He is the Author of that Authority ; but 
if that authority be fallible, that is, if it teach or can 
teach men falsehood instead of divine and supernatu- 
ral revelation, then,God is the Author of the deception, 
or He is the Author of that which exposes them to be 



142 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



deceived ; but God can be the Author of neither, be- 
cause falsehood is the opposite of truth; it involves a 
contradiction; but God cannot contradict Himself ; He 
is the Infinite — the First Truth ; truth is one of His 
attributes. But if God could contradict Himself, He 
would destroy His attribute of truth, and, consequent- 
ly, His own existence. God has in His intellect, from 
all eternity, the exemplar, that is, the idea of what 
would be the essence of all things, which He created 
in time ; and, also of all possibilities, which He can 
bring into realities. The essence of a thing is that 
which makes it what it is, as, for instance, a triangle 
is composed of three sides and three angles ; the three 
sides and the three angles are the essential attributes 
vdetermining the essence, that is, they make it a trian- 
gle. A triangle cannot have four sides and five angles, 
because that would involve a contradiction. A thing, 
therefore, with four sides and five angles is an absur- 
ity — it is nothing ; hence a contradiction of that 
which determines the essence of any reality, or possi- 
bility is absurd — it is nothing; but the harmony of 
essential attributes in realities and possibilities is the 
truth. The harmony exists in the Divine Intellect 
from all eternity. The Divine Intuition of the har- 
mony of realities is distinct from the things themselves. 
Moreover, God is infinite in all His attributes; they are 
the perfection of harmony; there can, then, be no con- 
tradiction in the divine attributes ; hence God is the 
Prima Veritas, that is, the First, the Eternal self exist- 
ing Truth. 

If Christ, the Son of God, could be the Author of 
a fallible church, or authority, He would deceive men 
by using a fallible medium to convey His doctrines, 



♦ 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 143 

or He would expose them to deception; this would 
destroy the harmony in the Divine Intellect, or the 
attribute of truth in God, and, consequently, would 
destroy the existence of God. 

Again, God is Almighty ; He can, therefore, do all 
things which are possible, that is all things in which 
there is no contradiction involved; but in founding a 
church teaching men faith and morals to the end of 
time, there is no contradiction. To deny, therefore, 
the infallibility of the church, or what is the same, the 
infallibility of her supreme authority, is a denial of 
the Omnipotence of God, and consequently His exis- 
tence. 

God is an Eternal, self existing Being, infinite in 
all His perfections ; He has made a church and in- 
vested her with supreme authority to teach men faith 
and morals; it follows, therefore, that this church or 
authority, teaching in its official capacity, must be 
infallible, otherwise the existence of God must be 
denied. 

From what has been established, it follows that the 
eccesia docens or the church teaching, in conformity 
with her supreme authority, is both the witness, the 
judge and the teacher of divine and supernatural rev- 
elation. The objection is not valid, that this teaching 
body is composed of men ; but men are human, and, 
therefore, fallible. Although the teaching body of 
the church is composed of men ; the human teaching 
element is united with Christ, the Divine Element ; 
and as long as the union between the human and 
Divine Elements exists, so long must the human ele- 
ment be infallible, because it is the organ of the 
Divine, which is infallible. It is again objected that 



14:4: THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 

the human element has only human reason, and, there- 
fore, cannot see the intrinsic truth of divine and 
supernatural revelation. It is not required that the 
human element should see the intrinsic truth of the 
matter revealed. Divine and supernatural revelation 
is a supernatural fact ; God has made it ; and human 
reason can bear evidence to a supernatural fact: for 
instance, a dead man is raised to life ; that is a super- 
natural fact ; human reason can be the witness of the 
fact ; but it cannot see the intrinsic truth of the Divine 
Power restoring life to the dead man. When God 
reveals truths, which are above human reason, as, for 
instance, the doctrine of a Triune God, He can make 
use of human agencies to convey such truths to men ; 
and* men commissioned by Him as witnesses, are and 
must be ^true witnesses, not, indeed, of the intrinsic 
truth of the matter revealed, but of the fact that God 
made such a revelation. If it were otherwise, God 
could not do all possible things ; then He would not 
be Omnipotent; such revelation is, therefore, possible, 
and also the witness deputed by Him. It is not only 
possible, but it has been made; and the church is the 
guardian and teacher of it, as we have already seen. 

We have seen that the Roman church has, from the 
commencement, recognized the Sacred Scriptures as 
the Word of God, and has proclaimed to the world, 
in all ages, that the canon of the Sacred Books, as she 
has made it out in the begining, contains a list of all 
the Sacred Books, and that these Books are to be re- 
ceived as the inspired Word of God. The canon is 
the same as that reproduced by the Council of Trent, 
as we have seen. The Sacred Scriptures are and can, 
then, only be received, as the inspired Word of God, 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 115 

on the infallible authority of the church. St. Augus- 
tin said, that he would not believe the Gospel unless 
the authority of the church moved him to it. The in- 
fallible authority of the church is not only the witness 
of the existence of the Sacred and inspired Books, but 
also the judge of the sense contained in them. 

The rock, on which Christ built His church eigh- 
teen hundred years ago, remains yet firm and unmoved, 
The angry waves of persecution, during the first cen- 
turies of Christianity, rose furiously and spent their 
utmost rage against it in vain. Envy, hatred, calum- 
ny and all the heresies have endeavored, during this 
period, to remove and destroy that rock; they left no 
means untried ; but it remains in defiance of all their 
efforts, repels their attacks, and will remain to the end 
of time. Well might St. Augustin exclaim : " This is 
the rock against which the proud gates of hell shall 
never prevail." In almost every age the enemy 
exclaimed, that the Papacy is at an end ; yet Peter 
still lives in his successors. The church has seen, in 
every age, her enemies rise ; she has withstood them, 
and has seen them fall. Where are, now, those who, 
in former ages, fought against her ? In their fury they 
dashed against the 'rock on which she is built ; they 
were hurled back prostrated at her feet, and finally 
disappeared. Christ has promised to remain with her 
to the end, to guard and teach her all truth. She 
stands gloriously on the summit of the mountain, a 
beacon-light to the weary traveler directing his course 
over the stormy sea of this world to the haven of a 
happy eternity. In her bosom he finds rest, security, 
and all the means to bring him to a happy end. 



146 THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER XX. 

THE INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 

The church must be indefectible, that is, she must 
remain as Christ made her, until the end of the world. 
Christ did not make His church for one generation, or 
for one or several centuries, but for all ages, because 
men are to be saved, in all ages. He left the same 
means of salvation for all, in His church, which are, 
as we have seen, the truths to be believed revealed by 
Him, the observance of His laws, the sacraments, the 
form of worship prescribed by Himself, etc. If the 
church had at any time failed, as the adversary alleges, 
then those, who lived after the defection could not 
have had the ordinary means of salvation ; for a de- 
fective church is one which has fallen away from the 
truth and has betrayed the trust placed in her. Such 
a church cannot be the guardian of truth nor a guide 
to lead man safely to the harbor of eternal life. God 
cannot be the author of such a church. Having shown 
that the Sacred Scriptures are to be received on the 
infallible authority of the church, we can now consist- 
ently and without laboring in a vicious circle, appeal 
to their testimony. The Prophet Isaiah speaking of 
the church under the new law, says : " But the Lord 
shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God 
for thy glpry." (chap. 60.) The word everlasting ap- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



147 



plied to the chnrch militant means as long as the 
militant church shall endure, that is to the end of time. 
According to the Prophet, then, God will be the light 
of the church until the end. 

The Prophet Osee speaking of the church, or rather 
God speaking through him: "And I will espouse thee 
forever, and I will espouse thee to me in justice, and 
in judgment, and in commiseration." (Chap. 2). Our 
Saviour said to St. Peter: "And I say to thee: That 
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my 
church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it." (St. Matthew, 16 chap., 18 verse.) The gates of 
hell are the powers of darkness — Lucifer and all his 
angels ; these oppose the church of God and are try- 
ing to prevail against her ; not only these but wicked 
men allied with them have been and are still striving 
to prevail against her; but Christ has promised that 
they shall not prevail. If they could succeed to pre- 
vail against the church, she would become defective 
and loose her divine element, and,consequently, would 
cease to be the spouse of Christ. With that they 
would be satisfied; but a victory over the church they 
shall never gain. Christ said to His Apostles: " Go 
ye therefore, and teach all nations ; baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you; and, behold, I am 
with you all days, even to the consummation of the 
world. (Matth. chap. 28). In this command is included 
the obligation of having divine faith, that is an assent 
to all the truths of supernatural revelation, for the 
Apostle says, that without faith it is impossible to 



148 



TUB DESTINY OF MA.N AND 



please God; also, the observance of all the direct and 
indirect divine laws. 

Good works must be animated by faith. The prom- 
ise that He will remain with the Apostles teaching 
faith and morals and in discharging the functions of 
the sacred ministry, appertains not only to the 
Apostles personally, but also to these who succeeded 
them in the same office, because by the death of Apos- 
tles their ministry ceased ; He therefore promised to 
remain with their successors in office until the con- 
summation of ages. Our Saviour again says: "And 
I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another 
Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever. The 
Spirit of truth, whom the world can not receive ; be- 
cause it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him ; but you 
shall know Him; because He shall abide with you, and 
shall be in you." (St. John, chap. 14). Forever. Here 
again, it is evident that the Spirit of truth was not 
only promised to the Apostles personally, but also to 
their successors throughout all ages. 

But the adversary says: I concede that the church 
taught the doctrines of Christ in the beginning ; but 
after some centuries, she introduced many errors. Her 
defection did not take place at once, but gradually 
and imperceptibly. Some assert that the defection took 
place in the year 600, others in 750, and others in 1200. 
From the very fact of their disagreeing, it is evident 
that their assertions are not founded in fact. If there 
were innovations and errors introduced into the 
church, I ask by whom, in what place, and in what 
year ? 

It is a historical fact that whenever the enemies 
endeavored to implant their errors into the church 



THE 1 2s FALLIBILITY OF THE CHTJKCH. 



149 



they were always detected, exposed and refuted. His- 
tory tells us what errors they taught, who were the 
teachers, where and in what year they lived. Thus we 
know who Simon Magus was, the first heretic, who 
disturbed the church. We know who Menander was 
in the first century, he denied that God is the 
Creator of the world and taught many other false doc- 
trines. We know Montanus, his followers, and the 
doctrines they taught in the the third century. Wc 
know Manes and his errors, when and where he lived. 
We know Areus, who denied the Divinity of Cl.rist ; 
and Xestorius, the impious Bishop of Constantinople, 
whose teachings entirely destroyed the mystery of the 
Incarnation ; in fine we have the history of all the 
heresies. If, for instance, the doctrines of the real 
presence, of Purgatory or an}^ other doctrines are in- 
novations and errors introduced into the church after 
the lapse of some ages, as the adversary asserts, why 
is it that such errors were not perceived and refuted 
as well as all other errors against faith ? Xot only 
all the pastors of the church, but also all the faithful 
must have been buried in profound sleep, during 
those times. You say that the real presence is an 
innovation — that such a doctrine was unknown. St. 
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch,who was instructed in the 
Christian faith by the Apostles, says in his epistle ad 
Trail, Xo. 10, that the Holy Eucharist is the same 
flesh which suffered for our sins, and which the Father 
raised again St. Justin, who lived in the second 
century, says in his first Apology, that the Holy 
Eucharist is the flesh of the Incarnate Jesus. Tertul- 
lian teaches the same doctrine in his book De Idolatria. 
With regard to purgatory and all the other doctrines 



150 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



of the church, they have been taught and believed from 
the beginning. Just as the church believes and teaches 
them now. Space and time do not permit me to 
adduce the proofs of each doctrine, besides the reader 
does not wish to peruse a most extensive volume. 
Those who wish to examine each individual doctrine, 
can consult the ecclesiastical writers of the first, second 
and third centnries,or they may read Bellarmin De con - 
troversies Christianae Fidei, adversus hujus temporis 
haereticos. He writes on all the doctrines of the 
church and collects the proofs taken from the ancient 
writers. 

But it is again asserted that the Pope makes new 
dogmas of faith, and that is surely an innovation and 
destroys the indefectibility of the church. This ques- 
tion has already been sufficiently answered. I again 
reply, that Christ has left a number of truths to His 
Apostles, and through them to His subsequent church; 
these truths form what is called the deposit of faith, 
or of supernatural revelation. Nothing can be added 
to the deposit, nor can anything be taken from it ; 
hence our Saviour appointed the Apostles and their 
successors in office, the guardians of those truths ; the 
deposit must be left intact by the church ; this the 
church .teaches. The Pope cannot therefore, in his 
official capacity, promulgate any doctrine unless it 
is contained in the deposit given by Christ. The ad- 
versary is therefore greatly mistaken, when he says 
that many new doctrines have been introduced into 
the church ; they are old doctrines, which the church 
has declared to be contained in the deposit of divine 
revelation. It was only when the truth was denied 
by heretics that the church, in order to save her inde- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 151 



fectibility, was obliged to declare to the world the 
truth which Christ revealed ; this then does not effect 
the truth ; it existed before the declaration as well as 
afi;er. 



152 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER XXL 

LIBERIES. 

Christianity had, from its commencement, enemies 
who labored to destroy it in its cradle ; they were not 
only Jews and Pagans, who waged an open war against 
it, but it had enemies within its own domain, who 
strove to corrupt and destroy it by their false doctrines. 
Although the Divinity of Christ was firmly believed 
and clearly taught by its first professors, yet, strange 
to say, we find men in the first century, who called 
themselves Christians, denying the Divinity of Christ; 
among these was Cerinthus. Bernini gives us an ac- 
count of the death of this heresiarch in his work, Istor. 
del. EVesiat. i c. i; he says that the Apostle St. John 
met him going into a bath, when, turning to those 
along with him, he said, let us hasten out of this, lest 
we be buried alive ; and they had scarcely gone outside 
when the whole building fell with a sudden crash, and 
the unfortunate Cerinthus was overwhelmed in the 
ruins. 

After St. John had returned from the island of Pat- 
mos, where he had been banished by the emperor 
Domitian for professing Christianity, he w x as entreated 
by his brethren to write his Gospel. St. Jerome re- 
lates that when earnestly pressed by the brethren to 
write the Gospel, he answered that he would, if by 
ordering a common fast they would put up their 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



153 



prayers together to God; which being ended, replen- 
ished with the clearest and fullest revelation coming 
from heaven, he burst forth into that preface : " In the 
beginning was the Word, etc." It appears that the 
main object, which the Apostle had in view, was to 
vindicate the Divinity of Christ, and to refute Cerin- 
thus and his followers. He says: "In the beginning was 
the Word." That is, the Word is from eternity, for he 
says that the Word was with God, and the Word Was 
God. Later on Pope Dionysius, in a council held in 
Rome, condemned the blasphemous doctrine denying 
the Divinity of Christ. This heresy was renewed by 
Alius, in the forepart of the fourth century, and was 
again condemned by the council of Nice in 325, as we 
have already seen. 

Having seen the origin of this heresy and its repeat- 
ed condemnation, we now come to Pope Liberius,who 
is accused of having espoused it by those who deny 
the infallible authority of the church. They say that 
he signed a formula of faith drawn up by the Arians, 
in which the doctrine was set forth that the Son of 
God is not consubstantial with the Father, ' and conse- 
quently not God ; and therefore the supreme authority 
of the church is not infallible from the fact that Pope 
Liberius officially approved of Arianism. We shall 
see in the sequel that this objection is without founda- 
tion. Liberius was a strenuous opponent of the Arian 
heresy, and an ardent defender of the Nicene faith, 
and of the innocence of St. Athanasius before he was 
exiled by the emperor Constantius to Berea. 

St. Athanasius, the illustrious Patriarch of Alexan- 
dria, had been the great champion and defender of 
Catholic faith. As might have been expected, he 



.154 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



drew the odium of the entire Arian faction upon him- 
self, hence he was the object of persecution for many 
years. A new church had been built in Alexandria, 
at the public expense ; it was inaugurated by St. Ath- 
anasius without the participation of Constantius. This 
became a new pretext for the emperor and the Arian 
party to persecute the holy Patriarch. The emperor 
appealed to Pope Liberius, requesting him to condemn 
Athanasius. St. Athanasius' inaugurating the church 
was a mere pretext for his condemnation; what the 
emperor aimed at was the destruction of Catholic 
Faith in the empire, and the substitution of Arianism 
in its place ; and as St. Athanasius was the great bul- 
wark of the Catholic religion in the African church, 
without doubt the emperor thought that by striking 
him down, he would give* a mortal blow to the Cath- 
olic church in that country. The Pope assembled a 
council of Bishops in Rome and laid the matter-before 
them. The answer given is worthy of the See of St. 
Peter: "It w T ould be contrary to all law, human and 
divine, to anathematize a Bishop whose faith is that of 
the church, and whose virtue is the admiration of the 
whole world." This enraged the emperor ; he issued 
an edict of banishment against all who would not sub- 
scribe to the condemnation of Athanasius. The Pope, 
wishing to restore peace and to appease the anger of 
the emperor, sent Vincent of Capua, who had pre- 
sided with Osius, of Cordova, in the Council of Nice, 
as legates of Pope Sylvester. The prelate was required 
to propose to the emperor the necessity of a general 
council by which the matter in dispute might be 
settled. No doubt the Pope thought that, during the 
interval, the angry passions w r ould subside, and that a 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUftCH. 



155 



council composed of Bishops of every part of the 
world would try their authority move the emperor if 
not to submit at least to become reconciled, and that 
harmony would be restored. Vincent met the emper- 
or at Ares, where he was surrounded by his Arian 
Bishops; all enemies of fit. Athanasius. They had 
met in council, and were proceeding to condemn him. 
The legate, seduced by intrigues and terrified by 
threats, forgot the character with which he was vested 
and in a moment of sinful weakness subscribed to the 
condemnation and anathema against the illustrious 
Patriarch of Alexandria. Liberius was grieved when 
he heard of the fall of Vincent of Capua. He imme- 
diately wrote to Osius as follows: " I had placed great 
hope in his intervention. He was personally known 
to the emperor, to whom he had formerly presented 
the acts of the council of Sardica. Yet he has not 
only failed to fulfil his mission, but has even been 
guilty of a deplorable act of weakness. I am doubly 
grieved at it ; and I beg of God that I may rather die 
than ever have a part in the triumph of injustice.'* 
The Pope commissioned Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari > 
metropolitan of Sardinia, with the priest Pancratius,, 
and the deacon Hilary, to deliver to the emperor a 
letter full of respectful firmness, disavowing the con- 
duct of Vincent of Capua, and urging anew the 
necessity of calling a general council, for the careful 
examination of the points at issue; "and," he writes,, 
14 to preserve in its full integrity the belief unanimous- 
ly expressed by the Catholic church, in the presence 
of Constantine the Great, your father of holy and 
glorious memory." 

The Council assembled at Milan in the beginning of 



156 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



the year 355. Three legates were sent by the Pope; 
they were the same whom the Pope had sent the pre- 
ceding year to the emperor, namely, Lucifer of Cagli- 
ari, the priest Pancratius, and the deacon Hilary. 
Constantius was determined that the Bishops of the 
Council should yield to lys will. He himself had 
drawn up a document in which he supported the 
Arian doctrine and made its recognition binding in 
all the churches of the empire. The legate Lucifer 
replied with firmness : " though Constantius should 
use all his legions against us, he will never compel us 
to renounce the belief of Nice or to assent to the blas- 
phemies of Arius." Threats had no avail to induce 
him to consent to the condemnation of St. Athanasius. 
The emperor, irritated at this unexpected resistance, 
cited Lucifer of Cagliari, Eusebius of Verecelli, and 
Dionysius of Milan before him. These three Prelates 
wielded the greatest influence in the council. 

" I am the personal accuser of Athanasius," said 
Constantius ; " you must believe the truth of my asser- 
tion." " This is not a question," replied the Bishops, 
" of a temporal nature, in which the imperial authority 
would be decisive; but an ecclesiastical judgment, in 
which equal impartiality must be shown both to the 
accuser and the accused. Athanasius is absent ; he 
can not be condemned without a hearing; the rule of 
the church forbids it." " But my will," replied Con- 
stantius, " must be the rule. You have to choose 
between submision and exile." The prelates with- 
drew. On the next day they weie on their way to 
exile. The deacon Hilary whose firmness had been 
most offensive was scourged 'in the public square be- 
fore starting for his place of exile. In a circular 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



157 



letter to the exiled Bishops who refused to betray the 
faith, Pope Liberius writes as follows: "Whatpraise 
can I bestow on you divided as I am between grief for 
your absence and joy for your glory ? The best con- 
solation that I can offer you is to beg that you will 
believe me to be in exile with you. I could have 
wished, dearly beloved brothers, to be the first victim 
offered for you all, and to give the example of glory 
you have acquired ; but your merit has won for you 
that high prerogative. I therefore entreat you, in 
your charity, to imagine me present with you, and to 
believe that my greatest grief is the privation of your 
society. Since your tribulation brings you nearer to 
our Lord, offer your prayers to Him for me that I 
may patiently bear the violence with which I am daily 
threatened. Entreat the Divine Mercy that the faith 
may remain inviolate ; that the Catholic Church may 
be preserved from division. Send me an account of 
the combat you have sustained for the faith, that your 
exhortations may restore my courage, and even the 
wasted strength of my body, oppressed by complicated 
diseases." Darras says: "the threats, of which the 
pope (Liberius) writes, very soon grew into open per- 
secution. The Arian eunuch, Eusebius, whose unlim- 
ited power over the weak mind of Constantius had 
reduced the Church to its present sad condition, was 
sent to Rome by the emperor to deceive Liberius and 
force him to sign the condemnation of Athanasius. 
The eunuch found presents and threats equally inef- 
fectual ; he then procured a rescript ordering Leontius 
governor of Rome, to convey Liberius to Milan, where 
Constantius held his court. The interview between 
the Pope and the emperor, as might have been fore- 



158 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



seen, was full of passion, recrimination and violence 
on the part of Constantius ; dignified, reserved, and 
firm, on that of Liberius. Two days later the Pope 
was seized and exiled to Berea in Thrace. The em- 
peror sent him five hundred gold pieces (about ten 
thousand francs), to defray his expenses. Liberius 
sent them back with these # words: " Tell the emperor 
to keep his money for the support of his army." A 
like tender from the empress met with a like reply. 
When the eunuch Eusebius had the effrontery to 
make a similar proffer, the indignant Pontiff answer- 
ed: " You have desolated the churches throughout the 
world, and do "you offer me an alms as to a crim- 
inal ? Go and begin by embracing the true faith." 
Liberius had hardly left the soil of Italy when the 
^emperor caused the Arian faction to consecrate an 
Antipope in Rome. The Bishop of Centumcella was, 
on this occasion, the organ of the imperial will. He 
caused the choice to fall upon Felix, an archdeacon of 
the Roman church. Three eunuchs represented the 
assembly of the people; three Bishops, one of whom 
was Acacius of Caesarea, consecrated him in the palace 
of the emperor. The Roman people had no part in 
this irregular ordination; they would hold no com- 
munion with the usurper and remained always 
faithful in their attachment to Liberius. Antiquity, 
however, does Felix the justice to testify that he 
always kept the belief of Nice, and that his conduct 
was irreproachable, save in the one particular of his 
relations with the Arians." (Darras' History of the 
Church, vol. i, page 454.) 

Liberius is accused of having signed a formula of 
belief containing Arian doctrine; but this is not 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



159 



founded in fact. Even if, for the sake of argument, 
we grant that he did sign such a document ; that 
would not militate against the infallibility of the 
Roman Pontiff. His signing a document containing 
Arianism was not an official act. The most that can 
be said in this hypothesis is, that Liberius; worn out 
with toil and persecution, wished to rid himself of his 
Arian persecutors, signed, by a deplorable act of 
weakness, a document containing the Arian heresy. 
But as he never taught, in his official capacity, ex cath- 
edra, what was said to have been contained in that 
# document — any unofficial or un-excathedra acts on the 
part of the Roman Pontiff are not recognized by the 
church as intallible ; because in such acts the Pope 
is not infallible ; this, then, neither militates against 
the infallibility of Liberius, nor against the infallible 
authority of the church. 

Having seen that Liberius was, up to this time, a 
glorious defender of the Nicene creed,that he preferred 
to go into exile, rather than betray the faith, that he 
rejected the proffered gifts with a generous indigna- 
tion, and that he administered a severe rebuke to the 
eunuch Eusebius, saying : " You have desolated the 
churches throughout the world, and do you offer me 
an alms, as to a criminal?" We will now investigate 
the charges alleged against Liberius. In order to 
understand the nature of the accusation it is necessa- 
ry to state that there were three formulas of belief 
drawn up at Sirmium. The first formula was adopted 
in the year 351 ; and in this Photinus, Bishop of Sir- 
mium, was again condemned, for he denied to Christ, 
not only consubstantiality with the Father, but also 
His Divinity, asserting with Cerinthus, Ebion and 



160 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



Paul of Samosata, that the Son of God had no exis- 
tence before Mary. Pontinus had been condemned 
in the council of Sardica ; but Constantius allowed 
him to appeal to the council of Sirmium. This coun- 
cil, composed of Arians and Semi-Arians, condemned 
him a second time. The formula, which it promul- 
gated, is as follows: " The Holy Catholic Church 
does not recognize as belonging to her those who say 
that the Son existed from any creation or substance, 
and not from God, or that there was a time when He 
did not exist. If any one denied that Christ-God 
was before all ages, and by whom all things were 
made, and that it was only from the time He was born 
of Mary that He was called Christ and the Son, and 
that it was only then His Deity commenced, let 
Him be anathema/' (See Natalis Alexander Eccl. 
His. Saeculum quartum). This is the first formula. 
Although the word consubstantial is not expressed, 
yet it is fully implied, for according to it the Son is 
God from all eternity; and that His Divinity is from 
eternity. This formula considered in itself is Catholic; 
the Arians may distort it into an Arian sense, as they 
do the Sacred Scriptures themselves. 

The second formula was published in Sirmium in 
the year 357. It was totally Arian, for the words 
consubstantial, and like ' in sitbstance were rejected, as they 
could not be found in the Sacred Scriptures. This 
was not the only blasphemous error it contained; for 
it asserted besides that the Father was, without any 
doubt, greater than the Son in honor, dignity and 
God ship; and that the Son was subject to the Father, 
together with all things which the Father subjected 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



161 



to the Son. This formula is blasphemous. St. Hilary 
calls it: " Exemplum blasphemice opud Sirmitmt." 

The third formula was likewise composed in Sir- 
mium, in the year 359. It rejects tlie vtord. substance, 
but recognizes the Son as equal to the Father in all 
things : " Vocabulum porro substantia, quid sempli- 
cius a Patribus positum est, et a populis ignatur et 
Scandalum affert, eo quod in Scripturis non continea- 
tur, placuit" ut de medio tolleretur. Filium autem 
Patri per omnia similem dicimus, quemadmodum 
Sacrae Litterae dicunt et docent:" In the first formula 
the word consubstantial is omitted. In the second no 
mention is made of either word,nor even of the words 
like unto; and in the third like unto is retained and ex- 
plained. 

Some accused Liberius of having subscribed to the 
third formula; but it was drawn up in the year 359. 
Liberius had then returned to Rome, as we learn 
from'the testimony of St. Athanasius. Moreover, the 
reason why he had been exiled, was, because he would 
not enroll his name on the banner of Arianism. It 
can by no means be supposed that, after enduring per- 
secution and exile for some years, he would, after his 
liberation and return to Rome, subscribe, on his own 
accord, to such a document. The Romans held Ari- 
anism in utter abhorrence, as can be seen from their 
conduct toward the Anti-Pope Felix. If Liberius had 
espoused Arianism at any time in Rome the whole 
people would have risen up against him. This accusa- 
tion is therefore utterly without foundation. 

We know from the testimony of Baronius, Natalis 
Alexander, Graveson, Fleury, Juenin, Tournelly, Ber- 
ninus, Orsi, Rermant, and Selvaggi, the learned 



162 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



annotator of Mosheim, and Gotti, that he did not sub- 
scribe to the second formula. 

But again, we are assured that it must be admitted 
that Liberius subscribed to the first Sirmium formula 
that that formula was adopted by the Arians, and, 
consequently was Arian ; therefore Liberius approved 
of Arianism. I answer that he neither subscribed to 
nor approved of the first, second, or third Sirmium 
formula ; nor did he subscribe to or approve of any 
other Arian documents, as will be seen further on. 
The first formula was not drawn up by the Arians, 
but by the Semi- Arians ; and, considered absolutely 
in itself, is orthodox, as we have already seen. The 
emperor, commanded Domophilus, the Semi- Arian 
Bishop of Berea, where Liberius had been exiled, and 
Fortunatus, Bishop of Aquilea, another apostate, to 
leave no means untried to make Liberius sign this (the 
first) formula of Sirmium, and the condemnation of 
St. Athanasius. He signed no document of any kind 
as is evident from what follows : — Rohrbacher, in his 
Universal History of the Catholic Church says ; " The 
emporer Constantius saw Rome for the first time as 
he entered it toward the end of April,' A. D. 357, in 
triumph for his victory won six years before over 
Magnentius. Liberius had now lingered out two 
years of exile ; the Roman matrons urged their 
husbands to petition the emperor for his restoration. 
They answered, that they feared the anger of the em- 
peror, who would not, perhaps, pardon the request if 
made by men, and that the matrons themselves would 
be more favorably received; that, though their prayers 
should be denied, still no harm could accrue to them 
from it. The matrons, therefore, presented their sup- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



163 



plication to the emperor, entreating him to pity so 
great a city deprived of its pastor. Constantius 
replied that Rome possessed a pastor capable of gov- 
erning it, without assistance from another ; he meant 
Felix. The Roman matrons rejoined that nobody 
entered the church whilst Felix was there ; for though 
he kept the Nicene faith, he still held communion, 
with those who corrupted it. The emperor doubtless 
promised to attend to their request ; for, sometime af- 
tet he wrote to Rome, announcing that Liberius was 
to be recalled, and to govern the church in conjunction 
with Felix. But when the letter was read in the circus 
the people ironically exclaimed: ' That is just indeed 7 
As there are two factions in the e ire us, distinguished by 
their colors, each one will have its bishop /' Having thus 
expressed their contempt for the imperial letter, they 
cried out with one voice: ' One God, one Christ, one 
Bishop ! ' Matters were carried to yet greater ex- 
tremes. Seditions were excited in Rome, and its streets 
were even stained with blood. It was on this account 
according to the historian Socrates, that the emperor 
reluctantly consented to the return of Liberius to his 
pontifical throne. 'The admirable Liberius then,' 
says Theodoret, ' returned to his beloved city.' Other 
ancient authors inform us that he entered Rome in 
triumph; that the whole city, full of joy, went out to 
meet him, and expelled Felix:" (Rohrbacher's Uni- 
versal history of the church, vol. n, page 430.) 

The historian says that the Roman matrons entreated 
the emperor to have pity on so great a city deprived of 
its pastor. This shows conclusively that Felix was 
not recognized as the lawful Pope ; the reasons are 
obvious — for the secular power has no authority to 



161 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



make such appointments. But it appears that he was 
rejected for still greater reasons, for it was alleged, 
though he kept the Nicene faith, he still held commun- 
ion with those who corrupted it. From this, it is 
apparent that they bore the greatest aversion, not only 
to the Arians but also to those who communicated 
with them. It appears furthermore from the same 
historian that the men were afraid to. ask the emperor 
to restore their Bishop, lest they -might incur his an- 
ger; and this was evidently the reason why the Anti 
Pope was tolerated, vet entirely abandoned; for when 
they felt that they could expel him with impunity they 
did so. Had Liberius signed any Arian document 
the Arians would have published everywhere that the 
controversy between the Catholics and themselves 
was at an end, that Liberius decided in their favor. 
This undoubtedly would have reached Rome before 
the arrival of Liberius. The Romans holding the 
Arians and their abbettors in utter abhorence would 
never have requested the emperor to restore their 
Bishop, Liberius, if he had subscribed to any formula 
drawn up by Arians or Semi-Arians. It is still further 
evident that he did not enter Rome with the foul stain 
of having betrayed the faith, but in triumph as a hero 
and as a conquerer ; the whole city, filled with, joy, went 
out to meet him. Although the emperor may have given 
a favorable answer to the Roman matrons,it is neverthe- 
less not historically certain that he promised to restore 
the Pope to his supreme dignity, for he afterwards, 
in I] is letter, declared that he would recall him 
and that he was to govern the church in con- 
junction with Felix; that means, at least, to keep up 
a communication with Arians or Semi-Arians. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUKCH. 165 



We have already seen the bitter and ironical reply of 
the Roman people to this imperial proposition. The 
reason, as the historian says, why the emperor reluc- 
tantly consented, was seditions excited in Rome; its 
streets were stained with blood ; and he quotes the 
ancient historian Socrates as his authority. Liberius 
was not therefore liberated from exile for signing any 
document whatever. 

Constantius convoked the council of Rimini in the 
year 359; that is the year after the alleged fall of Liberius, 
and after he had returned to Rome. The object of the 
emperor in convoking this council was to induce, or 
rather to force the Bishops of the west to condemn the 
test-word of Catholic faith, namely, the word consub- 
stantial\ and at the same time the Bishops of the east 
were to reject it at Selenceia. Ursacius and Valence 
came expressly from the imperial court to manage the 
deliberations. Four hundred and forty Bishops assem- 
bled, among whom were eighty Arians and Semi 
Arians. The Semi-Arians were determined to leave 
no means untried to commit the church to their views. 
This council was not convoked by the Pope but by the 
emperor ; the Pope had not even been consulted. If 
Liberius had subscribed to any Arian or Semi-Arian 
formula, he, without doubt, would have been called 
and compelled to come to it by the emperor ; the doc- 
ument, signed by him, would have been produced ; 
yet he was neither summoned nor was any document 
produced with his signature. Moreover, if he had in 
any way approved of, or favored Arianism or Semi- 
Arianism his example would have been quoted; yet it 
was not quoted. In the course of the very council 
Potamus and Epictatus loudly demanded his condem- 



166 



THE DESTINY OF MAX AXD 



nation. Again, if he had committed himself to Arian- 
ism or Semi-Arianism the Catholic Bishops would 
have denounced him as a traitor, and the Arians and 
Semi-Arians would have proclaimed that the Roman 
Pontiff belonged to their party, that he had sanctioned 
their doctrines by his authority. The silence of four 
hundred and forty Catholic, Arian and Semi-Arian 
Bishops proves beyond contradiction, that Liberius is 
innocent of the charge of which his opponents accuse 
him; and what still gives additional strength to the proof 
of his innocence, is the call for his condemnation in 
the council by the Arians or Semi-Arians themselves. 
The assembly at Selenceia was composed of about 
one hundred and sixty Bishops, divided in creed as 
follows: nineteen Anomaeans or pure Arians; one 
hundred and five Semi-Arians, admitting the similar 
in substance. The rest, all of Egypt, were zealous 
Catholics, supporting the term consubstantial and the 
faith of Nice. These Bishops as well as those of Rimini 
never alluded to the alleged fall of Liberius. The 
silence of one hundred and sixty more Bishops makes 
it still more conclusive that Liberius was innocent. 
Liberius protested against the irregular convocation 
of the council of Rimini, in these words: The impi- 
ous and sacrilegious Arians have succeeded in assem- 
bling the Bishops of the West at Rimini, with a view 
to deceive them by false discourses, and to force them 
by means of imperial authority, either to strike out or 
openly to condemn a term very wisely inserted in the 
profession of faith !" Liberius afterwards condemned 
and quashed the whole proceedings and dictated terms 
of reconciliation to the deceived Bishops, without a 
word on his own part to acknowledge that within the 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



167 



last two years he had been a traitor himself. It is 
alleged that we have the letters of Liberius to show 
that he communicated with the Arians or Semi-Arians. 
I will quote the Dublin Review in relation to this ac- 
cusation: "We now come to the so-called letters of 
Liberius himself. The Fragments of St. Hilary, 
mentioned above, present us with several letters pur- 
porting to be from the pope to various persons. Of 
these there are four so extremely like each other in 
language, manner, style and matter that they are evi- 
dently the work of another. 

* The language is such barbarous Latin, and shows 
not merely such a w T ant of polish and elegance, but. 
such poverty and clumsiness in the repetition of semi- 
barbarous terms and phrases, that these letters can not 
possibly be the production of a cultivated man whose 
native tongue was Latin. The style is confused and 
unconnected, the thought meagre and poor, and the 
repetition of two or three stereotyped phrases suggests 
a correspondent who is unaccu stomed to use his pen. 
Now, of these four letters ascribed to Liberius — one, 
viz., that addressed to the Oriental Bishops — commen- 
cing " Studens paci," has been proved to be a forgery. 
(Hefele Conciliengesch., i, 625, 665). The other three 
are documents upon which Mr. Renouf, and those 
who agree with him, chiefly depend for establishing 
the charge of heresy against Pope Liberius. With 
Dr. Hefele, we have no hesitation in maintaining that 
they also are forgeries. One great argument in proof 
of this is that if the u Studens paci" is forged its three 
congeners are forged also. Another is, that they con- 
tradict Sozomon. From his narrative, it is 
evident that Liberius had signed nothing and 



168 THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



agreed to nothing when he was brought from 
Berea to the court at Sirmium. If he had already 
signed the heretical "second formula," the emperor 
would never have lost time in trying to force him 
(over again) to condemn the Homoousion; much 
less in making him sign such a comparatively mild 
document as the Profession of Basil. But these letters 
assert that he had yielded and signed the heretical 
formula before he left Berea. Thirdly, the second 
letter states that the whole of the Roman clergy could 
bear witness that Athanasius had been separated from 
the communion of the Roman church. Now, there is 
positive proof that the Ronfan clergy never con- 
demned Athanasius, never diminished their enthusi- 
asm for him. To these proofs may be added the 
imbecility of the letters themselves, their discordance 
with all that is known of the character and anteced- 
ents of Liberius and the patent fact that they are quite 
different in style and language from those of his com- 
positions that are undoubtedly genuine. (See Revue 
des Questions Historiques liv. i). Summing up the 
evidence, Hefele concludes thus: " For the reasons 
given, therefore, and because they contradict trust- 
worthy history, I have as little doubt as Baronius, 
Stilting, P. Ballerini, Massari, Palma, and others, as 
to their spuriousness. I suspect that they are the 
work of some Greek, who was little skilled in Latin, 
and who wrote them in the Anomaean interest. Such 
a forgery is the less astonishing, since we know that 
the Arian party circulated false letters of Athanasius 
himself, and Sozomon expressly says that the Anomae- 
ans of Asia had spread false reports about Liberius, 
as though he had embraced their views and rejected 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUECH. 



169 



the doctrine of the church. May not these three 
letters have been the very means used to propagate 
this falsehood ? " (Hefele — Concilergesch, r. 668). 

The words of St. Jerome, who says that Liberius 
subscribed in hoereticum pravitatem^ and repeats the same 
thing in an other place, if they are genuine — which 
we do not in the least believe — can be explained of 
the occurrence which we have related in the words of 
Sozomen. Nothing is more probable than that the 
true nature of the transaction was not accurately 
known to St. Jerome, or to the hand that touched up 
his Chronicle and his " De Viris Illustribus." But it 
should be pointed out that the two texts of St. Jerome 
contradict each other in one most important particu- 
lar. The passage from the " De Scriptoribus Ecclesi- 
asticis" says that the Pope subscribed when he was 
going (pergentum) into exile ; that from the " Chroni- 
con" says that it was only when overcome by the distress 
of banishme?it (taedio victus exilii) that he did so. Mr. 
Renouf with incredible unfairness omits from the 
former quotation those very words which would ex- 
hibit this flagrant contradiction of the two passages. 
But in truth there are many other difficulties besides 
this against the genuineness of either." (Dublin Re- 
view, 1868). 

I have already gone beyond my limits in treating 
this subject, and what has been said is more than suffi- 
cient to show the innocence of Pope Liberius: never- 
theless it is very important to see Rhorbacher's defence 
of Liberius — it is short: 

"It may cause some surprise that we make no men- 
tion of the fall of Pope Liberius, the famous fall, which 



170 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



Bossuet has endeavored at great length to prove. We 
are aware that in his Apology for the Declaration of the 
Gallican Clergy, Bossuet spares no efforts to prove that 
Liberius fell by subscribing the Arian profession of 
faith ; but we also know, from his secretary, that in a 
later revision of the work, Bossuet erased the whole 
passage concerning Pope Liberius as not proving conclus- 
ively enough what he wished at that moment to establish. 
What Bossuet thought it his duty to erase from his 
Treatise on the Ecclesiastical Power, we deem it poper to 
erase from the History of the Church; what twenty years 
of meditation and research have not enabled Bossuet 
to prove to his own satisfaction, we deem simply in- 
demonstrable. The reasons of this are given in detail 
in the dissertation of a doctor of Paris, published a 
few years after the death of Bossuet ; in a more recent 
treatise of the learned Zaccaria, in the profound Gal- 
laud, of Venice, in the fifth volume of Library of the 
Ancient Fathers; and especially in the Critical History of 
the Holy Pope Liberius, inserted in the Acta Sanctorum,on 
the 23d of September. We shall only remark here, 
from what we have just seen, that the Roman people 
could not endure Felix, because, while he professed 
the belief of Nice, he still communicated with the 
Arians ; that Pope Liberius entered Rome like a con- 
queror ; that the people gave him a triumphal recep- 
tion and drove out. Felix. In the face of this conduct 
of the Roman people, how can it be supposed that 
this same Pope Liberius had just disgraced himself 
before the church by condemning St. Athanasius, by 
subscribing to Arianism, and by sending to the prin- 
cipal Arians letters of communion, as pitiful in style 
as they were abject in sentiment ? We have seen the 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



171 



scandal to which the fall of Osius gave rise, the advan- 
tage taken of it by the Arians, and the striking reply 
of St. Phebadius of Agen. Now, if Liberius had like- 
wise fallen, the scandal would have been much more 
horrible, the Arians would have proclaimed a greater 
triumph. St. Phebadius would have found a much 
more urgent call for a reply. This utter silence, on 
all hands, conclusively proves the nullity of the fact. 
It may be objected that St. Athanasius refers to the 
fall of Liberius, both in his Apology, and in his History 
of the. Avians, which later work was addressed to the 
hermits; but it is universally granted that the Apology 
against the Arians was written at the very latest in A. 
D. 350, two years before Liberius became Pope. The 
passage which speaks of his fall is, then, evidently a 
subsequent addition, made by a strange and unskilful 
hand ; for, far from giving any force to the Apology, it 
only makes it pointless and ridiculous. The History 
of the Arians was written at a period prior to that of 
the supposed fall of Pope Liberius. This unfavorable 
passage is, then, another interpolation, equally uncon- 
nected with what precedes aud what follows. 

" But by whom could these interpolations have been 
made ? We know that even during the lifetime of St. 
Athanasius the Arians forged a letter, in his name, to 
Constantius. What they would do whilst he was still 
alive was certainly easier of accomplishment after his 
death. Did not the Donatists invent a similar account 
of a fall on the part of Pope St. Marcellinus, which 
was long received, but which all critics now acknowl- 
edge as false ? Besides, the Arians were not the 
only enemies of Liberius ; the Luciferian schismatics 
were quite as eager to defame him. 



172 



THE DESTINY OF MAJST AND 



" In the words of Rufinus, written about fifty years 
after this period, we perhaps see the first dark spots 
on the horizon, foreboding the storm of calumny 
which was soon to break upon the head of Liberius. 
He says: ' Liberius, Bishop of Rome, had returned 
whilst Constantius was still alive; but I cannot posi- 
tively state whether it was that he had consented to 
subscribe, or that the emperor would please the Rom- 
an people, who, at his departure, had begged this 
favor.' Rufinus was a priest of Aquilea ; in his youth 
he may have known Liberius; he had certainly known 
Fortunatian, the Bishop of Aquilea, to whom the fall 
of Liberius is imputed. And yet Rufinus knows nothing 
of it undoubtedly because the calumny was only begin- 
ning to spread Abroad; for if Liberius had actually sign- 
ed an Arian f ormula,had he actually penned the pitiful 
letters of defection ascribed to him, the Arians, who 
were all-powerful, would have left no one in ignor- 
ance of the fact. It would have been impossible for 
Rufinus to retain any doubt upon the subject." 

Again Rhorbacher says : "The Greek Menology re- 
lates the facts as we have given them. It speaks as 
follows: i The Blessed Liberius, defender of s the faith, 
was Bishop of Rome under the empire of Constantius. 
Burning with zeal for the orthodox faith, he protected 
the great Athanasius, persecuted by the heretics for 
his bold defence of the truth, and driven from Alex- 
andria. Whilst Constantius and Constans lived, the 
Catholic faith was supported ; but when Constantius 
was left sole master, as he was an Arian, the heretics 
prevailed. Liberius, for his vigor in censuring their 
impiety, was banished to Berea in Thrace. But the 
Romans, who always remained true to him, went to 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



173 



the emperor and besought his recall. He was there- 
fore, on this account, sent back to Rome, and there 
ended his life, after a holy administration of his pas- 
toral charge/" (Rhorbacher, Universal History of the 
Catholic Church, vol. ii, page 430). 



174 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



CHAPTER XXII. 

HONORIUS. 

The next Pope accused of heresy is Honorius. When 
he ascended the Potifical throne there was nothing 
in the religious atmosphere which foreboded the 
dreadful storm which was about to fall upon his 
Pontificate. But the enemy of truth would not long- 
remain tranquil; his great aim from the beginning was 
to destroy the mystery of the incarnation in one way 
or another. We have seen the efforts which the 
Arians made to destroy the doctrine of the Divinity 
of Christ by denying to Him his consubstantiality 
with the Father — by proclaiming that there was a 
time when He did not exist. After this baneful here- 
sy had been crushed by the supreme authority of the 
church, another equally impious rose up, setting forth 
a doctrine which, in its consequences, destroys the 
incarnation of the Eternal Word. Natalis Alexander 
tells us that the founder of this error was Sergius, Pa- 
triarch of Constantinople. He communicated his 
opinions to Theodore, Bishop of Pharon, in Arabia. 
Theodore replied that he entertained the same opin- 
ions. A union was formed by the adherents of these 
opinions. This act of the union was concluded in 633 
and contains nine articles ; but the seventh is the one 
which contains all the poison of heresy. It asserts 
that Christ is the Son Himself who produces the di- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHT.RCH. 



175 



vine and human operations by means of one Theandric 
operation alone — that is, we may say a human-Divine 
operation, both human and Divine at the same time — 
so that the distinction exists not in reality, but is 
drawn by our understanding. 

Jesus is the Son of God. The Son of God is of the 
same nature, of the same power and wisdom with the 
Father ; as we more fully profess in these words of the 
Nicene creed, " and in Jesus Christ His only begotten 
Son, born of the Father before all ages, God of God, 
true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstan- 
tial to the Father, by whom all things were made." 

In time the Son of . God assumed human nature. 
The Almighty formed a body and created a soul in the 
chaste womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary ; with the 
body formed and soul created the son of God, the 
second person in the Blessed Trinity, united Himself 
hypostatically. There are then two natures in Christ, 
the divine and human, not mixed up but really distinct; 
these two natures are united and terminate in the 
Person of the Son of God ; there is then in Christ 
only one Person, namely, the Divine. Each nature 
in Christ must have its own distinct operation, there 
are then two distinct operations in Christ, the divine 
and human. An operation is the result of an opera- 
tor ; a rational operator in acting must make use of his 
will; but as there are two distinct natures in Christ, 
and two distinct operations, there must be two wills; 
the divine will for the divine operation and the human 
will for the human operation. If you say with the 
Monothelites~that there is only one will in Christ, 
then that will is either divine or human ; if divine, 
then there is no human will in the humanity of Christ, 



176 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



but it is evident that there can be no humanity with 
out a will; if there is no humanity in Christ, then 
there can be no incarnation, and, consequently, no re- 
demption. If the will of Christ is human, then He 
cannot be God, because the very essence of God re- 
quires a will ; there must then be two distinct wills 
in Christ, the divine and human. There can be only 
one person in Christ, namely, the Divine, because 
Christ is only one individual ; but if there were two 
persons in Christ, then there would be two individuals, 
then the human individual would have suffered and 
died for the redemption of man ; but a human individ- 
ual cannot satisfy the infinite justice of God, then, the 
debt which man contracted with the Divine Justice is 
not liquidated. This would destroy the hypostatic or 
personal union of the divine and human nature in 
Christ. An infinite satisfaction is required to cancel 
the debt contracted by man with the Divine Justice. 
It is by the hypostatic union that the actions of Christ 
are of infinite merit; hence the Holy Scriptures say 
that God died, that is the Son of God died in His hu- 
man nature. If, with Nestorius, you attribute two 
persons to Christ, you destroy the incarnation and 
consequently the redemption of mankind. 

It may be well to say a few words with regard to 
the divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin. It has 
been seen that the body of Christ was formed in her 
chaste womb, and His soul created and the Son of God 
the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity united Him- 
self to that body and to that soul by a hypostatic or 
personal union. The divinity existed from all eternity; 
but the Divinity in time united itself with the Sacred 
humanity; the Blessed Virgin brought forth the hu- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



ITT 



inanity united witty the Divinity, by the hypostatic 
union ; she is therefore the Mother of God. 

Having seen the doctrine of the church with regard 
to the two operations and the two wills in Christ, we 
now come to examine the case of Pope Honorius. 
The accusation is grounded on the letter which he 
wrote to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople ; in that 
letter he is made out to teach that there is only one 
will in Christ. We will see further on that he taught 
no such doctrine. We have seen that Sergius was the 
founder of the Monothelite heresy. By the propaga- 
tion of his errors a great controversy naturally arose 
between the Catholics and the Monothelites. Sergius 
wrote to Pope Honorius a long and deicetful letter, in 
which he acquainted him that the emperor Heraclius 
was desirous to put an end to the Eutychian heresy, 
that he had found the Eastern mind agitated with the 
useless question whether there were two operations 
and two wills in Christ. He says in this letter: " The 
emperor asked my opinion, and inquired if I knew 
that any of the fathers had taught the doctrine of a 
single will. I answered affirmatively, and sent a 
letter written by Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, 
to your predecessor Virgilius. It contains several 
passages from the Fathers, which speak oulv of one 
will in Jesus Christ. Yet the Monk Sophronius, late- 
ly raised to the See of Jerusalem, continually imbitters 
the dangerous dispute. He maintains that we 
must admit two operations in Christ. In vain he 
is reminded that to win a greater number of souls to 
God, our fathers used consideration and concession, 
without however yielding any thin g of strict precept ; 
and that here in like manner, it was not fitting to dis- 



ITS 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



pute about a question which in no wise hurts the true 
faith. In spite of our efforts the two parties are warm 
in the strife. We have written to the emperor to urge 
upon him the importance of crushing a dispute which 
may again plunge the East into the depths of heresy, 
and w-e deemed it fit to acquaint you with the state of 
the question by sending the documents that bear upon 
it." The Pope was ignorant of the controversy, which 
had disturbed the East, until he received the letter of 
Sergius. Utterly unsuspicious of the crafty designs 
of Sergius, he approved of the desire, so insidiously 
set forth in the letter, of crushing, in its birth, the seed 
of division and trouble, and accordingly wrote to Ser- 
gius as follows : " We have received your letter 
acquainting us with the discussions lately raised in 
the East. We commend your zeal in rejecting all 
novelties of expression, according to the advice of the 
Apostle. Let us leave grammarians to discuss idle 
questions, and disdain a war of words which would 
bring trouble upon the church." The above is taken 
from the letter. Such was the view of Honorius. He 
thought the new heresy would have died out before 
taking deep root, and had the misfortune to regard this 
controversy as an idle dispute. 

It is a fact admitted by historical critics that Hon- 
orius wrote the letter in question to Sergius, Patriarch 
of Constantinople; but it is very uncertain whether it 
is the same as it came from the hands of the Pontiff. 
It remained in the archives of the Patriarchal Church 
of Constantinople up to the death of Sergius, and for 
some years after; it was moreover never published. 

Monotheliteism, of which Sergius is the founder, is . 
only a different feature of Eutychianism. Darras says, 



TIIE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUECII. 



179 



in his Church History (vol. 2, page 216): "Sergius 
openly professed the heresy. He maintained that none 
of the holy Fathers had ever taught that there were 
two operations in Jesus Christ, and that the person of 
Christ, subsisting in two natures, the divine and hu- 
man, acted by a single will. To back his assertion, he 
forged a letter to Pope Vigilius, signed by the Patri- 
arch Mennas, and expressing the Monothelite teaching. 
This supposititious letter was sent to the Bishops of the 
principal Eastern Sees." 

This forged letter was acted upon by the fifth gen- 
eral council, held in Constantinople ; in the sixth 
general council, also in Constantinople, in its twelfth 
and fourteenth sessions, it was discovered that it was a 
forgery. It is evident that any man, who forges a 
letter of this kind, has no honor, no principle, and, 
what is more, no conscience; such a man it appears to 
me will stop at nothing; and what is still more crim- 
inal is to send such a forged document to different 
churches or Bishops with a view to lead them into 
error. I do not sav that Sergius fixed up the letter 
of Honorius to suit his purpose, but it is very doubtful 
whether he did not ; at all events, such a man can be 
trusted only as far as foe is seen and closely watched. 
Let it be granted that the letter written by Honorius 
is genuine in all its parts. 

It is to be observed that that letter was not an ex- 
cathedra document, that is,the pope did not wish to de- 
fine the matter in dispute, for he says in it that " Jesus 
Christ is one alone, operating by the Divinity and 
humanity, that the Scriptures prove this in many 
places; but it is of no consequence to know whether 
by the operation of the Divinity or of the humanity 



ISO 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



we admit one or two operations. We should leave 
this dispute to the grammarians. We ought to reject 
these new expressions, lest the simple hearing of two 
operations might consider us Nestorians, or perhaps 
might count us Eutychians, if we recognize one oper- 
ation alone in Christ." In the second letter he says 
" Let us beware not to darken the teaching of the 
Church by the clouds of our discussions. We ac- 
knowledge that the two natures in Jesus Christ act 
and operate each with the other's participation, the 
divine nature operates what is of God, the human 
what is of man, without division, without confusion, 
without a change of the divine into man, or of the 
human into God, but the differences of natures re- 
maining wholly distinct. Let it suffice to admit this 
truth without discussing the question whether we 
should express this mode of action by the terms of 
one or of two operations in Jesus Christ." From these 
expressions it is clear that the Pontiff did not wish to 
define the matter in dispute. What he intended was 
to impose silence on both parties, but that is not a 
definition. From the Dublin Review can be seen the 
manner in which an ex -cathedra document is issued. 
It says : " Pope Agatho in addressing the Bishop (in 
the sixth general council) sets before them the formula 
of Catholic faith, which is the formula of the Apos- 
tolic Magisterium of the Roman See ; and he informs 
them they must believe and confess it, and on the 
other hand condemn and reject every dogma contrary 
t ) it. Should they refuse to submit to this rule of 
faith, they would be in error, in schism, and in repro- 
bation. But he could not impose a formula of faith to 
be believed and confessed, unless his Magisterium was 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



1S1 



universally acknowledged as infallible. Therefore,he 
repeatedly insists on that capital point of doctrine. He de- 
clares that the Roman See has never erred and that it 
never shall err. He confirms and explains his asser- 
tions by referring to the promises of Christ, to the 
example of all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, 
and of the (Ecumenical synods themselves, which had 
always received from Rome the paradigm of the doc- 
trine tney were to define. (F. Bottalla, pp. 89, 90). And 
now let us see how the assembled Fathers received his 
two letters. Did they lift up their voices in protest 
against the fundamental doctrine of infallibility,which 
Agatho attributed to his See, and which he rested on 
the promises of Christ Himself? Was objection raised 
to the magisterial tone of the letters addressed to an 
GEcumenical Council ? The large and influential 
assembly of Bishops not only found nothing to cen- 
sure in the letters of the Pope, but it received them as 
a whole and in all their parts as if they had been 
written by St. Peter, or rather by God Himself. The 
Fathers testified to their admitting the infallibility and 
divine authority of the letters, in the eighth session as well 
as in the Synodical Letter addressed to Agatho; and 
in the Prosphonetic letter sent to the Emperor, they regarded 
them as a rule of faith. Nc sooner did a suspicion 
arise that four Bishops and two monks refused to 
adhere to them than, the Council ordered them to 
give an explanation of their faith in writing on oath. 
They submitted, and solemnly affirmed that they ac- 
cepted without reserve all [the heads of doctrine con- 
tained in the Letters. Again, Macarius, Patriarch of 
Antioch, was, by sentence of the Council, deposed from 
his dignity and expelled from the Synod, because he 



182 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



refused to adhere to the letters of Agatho." (Bottalla, 
pp. 90, 92). Dublin Review, 1869. 

It is necessary before proceeding farther to l^ave a 
clear conception of the nature of a Papal ex-cathedra 
decree. The explanation given by F. Bottalla is admi- 
rable; I will give it as I found it in the Dublin Review 
of 1869: " There are two kinds of cases in which doc- 
trines may be said to be defined by the Pope. One 
regards the doctrines which are not contained in a 
clear manner in the universal magisterium of the church 
and which are disputed on both sides ; as was for sev- 
eral centuries the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep- 
tion, with many others. The second .concerns 
doctrines clearly revealed and universally believed 
as dogmas of faith, although they have never been 
defined explicitly and under anathema by the authentic 
magistarium. Such was the doctrine of the consubstan- 
tiality'of the DivineWord,and generally all the doctrines 
concerning the Incarnation. Now, the denial of a doc- 
trine of the first class,beforeits infallible definition,does 
not constitute a sin of heresy ; and if either of the two 
rival schools seek the supreme judgment of the Pope 
upon the question, it must be prepared to submit to 
that judgment, and be ready to reject the doctrine till 
then defended, and even to embrace the contrary 
teaching were it proposed by the Pope cx-cathedra. But 
it is not so with doctrines of the other kind. A doc- 
trine universally believed in the church is infallible 
de fide; the consent of the church being equivalent to 
a formal and explicit definition. Therefore the Arians, 
the Nestorians and the Eutychians were generally looked 
upon by Catholics as heretics, even before any infallible sen- 
tence had been pronounced against them. In such cases when 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



183 



a definition is required either from the Pope or from 
a CEcumenical Council, the request is made not properly 
for the instruction of the orthodox as to what they 
should believe in the matter, but only to crush and des- 
troy error [with the overwhelming authority of a 
Supreme Judgment. As to Catholics, those who, from 
ignorance or prejudice, have been led into error, are 
bound to wait for the infallible decree; and must hold 
themselves in readiness to submit unreservedly to the 
same ; but others who are fully acquainted with the 
teaching of the church, must be steady in their adhe- 
sion to it, while expecting that infallible decision 
which will finally confirm their faith. For divine 
truth proposed in a decree of faith cannot possibly 
differ from the divine truth believed in the Universal 
Church. Consequently in such cases, when Catholics 
already in possession of the Catholic truth, apply to 
the Pope or a General Council for a definition neces- 
sary to ensure the triumph of faith over heresy, they 
should not harbor in their hearts the smallest doubt 
concerning the doctrine laid before the Apostolic See. 
(Bottalla pp 42, 43). A Pontiff teaches fx cathedra 
always, and only, when he exhibits his intention of 
imposing on all Catholics an obligation of absolute 
assent. Ex cathedra documents are issued with cer- 
tain solemnities from which the mind of the Pontiff 
can be unmistakably known. Bottalla explains the 
formalities and solemnities of such documents as 
follows : 

" According to the discipline and practice of the 
church in ancient times, which was preserved for many 
centuries , there are some solemnities which were or- 
dinarily observed when dogmatic constitutions were 



184 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



despatched by Roman Pontiffs. They were previously 
read and examined in the synod of [the Bishops of 
Italy, with whom the prelates of neighboring provinces 
were sometimes associated ; or in the assembly of the 
clergy of the Roman chiirch. Again, they were sent 
to the Patriarch, or even to the Primates and Metro- 
politans that they might be. everywhere known and 
obeyed. Finally, the signatures of all the Bishops 
were often required to those papal constitutions, to 
show their submission and adhesion to them. We do 
not now mean to spend time in demonstrating these 
points of ancient ecclesiastical discipline ; they will be 
found proved beyond all question in the learned 
words of Constant, Thomassin, and Cardinal Orsi. 
It must be distinctly understood' that we do not main- 
tain the absolute necessity of the above mentioned 
characters, as if no Papal utterance of that age could 
be ex cathedra if any one of these marks were wanting ; 
but we maintain affirmatively that Papal utterances 
bearing all these characters were to be regarded as 
certainly issued ex cathedra; and negatively that no 
Papal decree could be considered at that time as ex 
cathedra, if wanting in all and each ot these characters." 
Again, he says : " In order that a Papal utterance may 
have the character of a teaching ex cathedra, it is requis- 
ite first not only that it should treat of a question of 
faith, but that it should propose a doctrine to be believed or 
condemned; secondly, that the Pope should show the 
intention of teaching as Pope, and of enforcing his 
doctrinal decree on the Universal Church. If either 
of these two qualities be wanting the letter [of Honor- 
ius] can not be said to contain any teaching ex cathedra. 
This is what all Catholics, without exception, admit 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



185 



as necessary and essential to an infallible document 
issued by Papal authority." (Page 18). Let us now 
see whether we can find such features in the letter of 
Honorius to Sergius. Muzzaretti gives us ample in- 
formation on this subject. I will give a passage of 
his work as I find it] in the Dublin Review of 1869. 
The passage is in Latin of which I will give the 
translation; it runs as follows: "So far is it from 
having the right of being called a solemn letter that 
in the West, where it was made up, it was for many 
years unknown. In it therefore appear all the marks 
of a private letter. It was written by the command 
and in the name of Honorius, by his private secretary 
or notary, and, therefore, so that it was only from this 
secretary that John, the successor of Honorius, could 
ascertain his intention, and the interpretation of the 
letter. In the West, as we have stated, the letter was 
hidden for a long period, and at length it only became 
known when Pyrrus, the successor of Sergius, made 
haste to draw out the true sense of the writings of 
Honorius, thus Pope John testifies in his apology to 
Constantine for Honorius. (Cone. tome. 5 pag. 1759). 
Now it cannot therefore be said that, then, the origi- 
nal epistle of Honorius was published in the West ; 
but only the testimony was made manifest, for Pyr- 
rus renders an account of this very letter, in his 
epistles sent to various places. Moreover, about the 
letter in question, there was no mention or charge 
made at the subsequent Roman Synods, in which were 
condemned the Monothelites, Sergius, Pyrrus and 
Paul of Constantinople. In the East, however, the 
document existed not, because the epistle of Honorius 
was not sent to the churches by Sergius. In the 



1S6 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



twelfth sitting of the sixth synod the Latin autograph 
epistle of Honorius, with a Greek interpretation, was 
produced from no less a place than from the Patriar- 
chal safes of the Constantinopolitan church. It was sent 
therefore, to Sergius alone and hidden by him in the 
archives of the church; and from it probably Pyrrus cut 
out certain words by which, craftily, he implicated the 
authority of Honorius into a bulwark of defence for 
his heresy. For in truth, in the Lateran synod under 
Martin, the First, in which Stephen, the Bishop of 
Dorensus and ex parte of Jerusalem, brought forth a 
document against the errors of Sergius and his suc- 
cessors Pyrrus and Paul ;. but no mention is made 
of the guilt of Honorius, which it would have been 
necessary to examine in the case. The same silence 
is observed in the book of the Greek Monks, which 
was read in this connection. This book ought to have 
brought the quarrel of orthodox orientals about the 
epistle of Honorius before the synod in this case. Not 
even in the Thipus Constantis of Paul, the Monotholite, 
and in which all strife about the one will and one op- 
eration, or the two wills and operations was prohibited 
•is there any testimony produced from the epistle of 
Honorius, which Paul should have suggested to Con- 
stans in order that he could defend the Typus against 
the Occidentals and ensure himself against the con- 
demnation of Martin." 

What has been stated is sufficient to show that the 
letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius is not an ex cathe- 
dra document. 

Although the letter of the Pontiff was not an ex 
cathedra document, and though he did not intend to 
make any definition of faith, we nevertheless maintain 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



1ST 



that the letter in question contains nothing heterodox 
or heretical. In order to determine this we must have 
recourse to the letter itself. Honorius teaches clearly 
and distinctly in that letter that Christ is the Mediator 
between God and men, that He descended from heaven 
and assumed human nature. He mentions distinctly 
the two natures, namely, the divine and human; he 
says that they are distinct, that the one is not mixed 
up with the other; he says, furthermore, that there 
are two distinct operations in Christ, the divine and 
human. + 

In his second letter he expresses his meaning still 
more clearly, for he says that we should beware not to 
darken the teachings of the church by the clouds of 
our discussions. We acknowledge that the two natures 
in Jesus Christ act and operate each with the other's 
participation ; the divine nature operates what is of 
God, and the human what is of man, 4 without division > 
without confusion, without a change of the divine 
nature into man, of the human into God, but the dif- 
ferences of natures remain wholly distinct. Let it 
suffice to admit this truth without discussing the 
question by the terms of one or two operations in 
Jesus Christ. It is evident from the Pontiff's first 
letter that he implicitly taught that there are two 
wills in Christ, for he says that we ought to reject new 
expressions, lest the simple hearing of two operations 
might consider us Nestorians, or perhaps might count 
us Eutychians, if we recognize one operation alone in 
Christ. 

We must remember that the Nestorians attributed 
two persons to Christ. The Pontiff evidently feared 
that the word operation might be taken for per- 



1SS 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



son, thus he wished to escape Nestorianism. On the 
other hand he wished to keep aloof from Eutychian- 
ism, which taught that there is only one will in Christ. 
The context of the Pontiff's words above indicate 
clearly and distinctly that he taught that there are two 
wills in Christ. Again, he speaks of the two distinct 
natures, the divine and human, of the two distinct 
operations, the divine and human, in his first letter. 
In his second letter he is still more explicit, for there 
he says that the two natures are without division, 
without confusion, without a change of the divine 
into man and the human into God, but their differ- 
ences remain wholly distinct. Now, the human nature 
in Christ means .that he is man ; but the essence 01 
man is his soul and body. One of the essential attri- 
butes of the soul is the will ; if you take away the will 
you destroy an essential attribute of the soul, and con- 
sequently the soul itself; but without a soul there can 
be no humanity, then Christ did not assume human 
nature. Moreover, the Pontiff speaks clearly of the 
two distinct operations in Christ, the divine and 
human. An operation, as we have seen, is the result 
of an operator, or agent. An intelligent agent can 
not act without a will; but as there are two operations 
in Christ, the divine operating in a divine manner, 
and the human operating in a human manner, there 
must be two distinct wills in Christ, the divine and 
human. The Monothelites knew this, for later on 
they admitted only one operation in Christ ; therefore 
the Pontiff taught in his letter to Sergius that there 
are twe wills in Christ. 

Honorius says in his letter to Sergius: " We pro- 
fess one will in our Lord Jesus Christ ; because plainly 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



189 



our nature was assumed by the Godhead, not the sin in 
it ; that is, our nature as it was created before sin 
existed, not that which was corrupted after the trans- 
gression." He says that Christ assumed our nature 
as it was before it was corrupted by sin. Now the 
will of our first parents was upright and entirely sub- 
ject to reason and to God before their transgression in 
Paradise. Though by the sin of Adam the free will of 
man was not lost and extinguished yet the entire 
Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was 
changed, in body and soul, for the worse. Human 
nature was then wounded by the sin of Adam. Adam 
could transmit no other than wounded human nature 
to his posterity ; hence the Apostle says : " By one 
man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and 
so death passed upon all men in whom all have 
sinned: " (Rom. 5, 12). But as the will is an essential 
attribute of human nature, it was therefore wounded 
by the fall of Adam. 

The first wound in the will is inordinate self-love,, 
and an immoderate love of transitory objects ; this 
love destroys charity. 

The second is the difficulty we experience in prac- 
ticing virtue and in overcoming our sinful passions. 
The third is our incredible negligence in laboring to 
procure our eternal salvation, often preferring the 
goods of earth to those of heaven. The fourth is the 
unbounded solicitation in acquiring the goods of this 
world. The fifth is a certain wonderful perversity 
which the will has in serving God. It sometimes re- 
fuses to accept God's truths, confirmed by many 
miracles. The sixth is the inconstancy of the will and 
the internal struggle which frequently arises within 



190 



THE DESTINY OF MAN *AND 



the human breast. Finally the grace of God is required 
to renovate the will. God gives his grace but the will 
must accept it. These wounds in the will are the 
effects of original sin and are called the will of the 
flesh. 

We do not wish to be understood that the wounds 
or disorders in the will are sins in themselves. The 
Council of Trent is explicit on this subject; it says : 
" But this holy synod confesses and is sensible that in 
the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an in- 
centive to sin ; which, whereas it is left for our exer- 
cise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist 
manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ ; yea, he who 
shall have striven lawfully shall be croitmed" (2 Tim. 2, 5). 
This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes 
calls sin (Rom. 6, 8), the holy synod declares that the 
Catholic Church has never understood it to be 
called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those 
born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin." 
(Canon 5th on Original Sin). These wounds and dis- 
orders were not in the will of 'Adam before his 
transgression, but were inflicted upon him and his de- 
scendants for his transgression. 

Now, when the Pontiff says that Christ has one will, 
he means that Christ has not two opposite human 
wills, such as we have, the one defective — the will of 
the flesh ; that the will of Christ was not wounded 
by sin like ours, but that he had a correct human will, 
the will of the spirit, such as was the will of Adam 
before his fall. This is evident from the words of the 
Pontiff, for he says that our nature was assumed by 
the Godhead but not the sin in it; that is our nature as 
it was created before sin existed. 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUECH. 



191 



The Dublin Review says: " The question to be here 
asked is most simple, and admits but of one possible 
reply. Is Honorius speaking in these words of Christ's 
divine or human will ? Mr. Renoulf makes the as- 
tounding remark that ' the context of this passage' 
proves its reference to the divine will. Can he be in 
his senses? Does he think, or did Honorius think, 
that Adam before the fall was a plant ? A vegetable ? 
At the utmost a brute? Was not Adam created in 
possession of a will ? That which he was happy in 
not possessing, was a second will at variance with the 
first. Now Honorius's* distinct argument is this: 
1 Since Christ assumed that human nature which ex- 
isted before the fall, He has only one will (human) 
and not two.' Yet Mr. Renoulf will have it and 
Dollenger will have it, that the will of which the Pon- 
tiff speaks is the divine. When should we have heard 
the last of it, if some unlucky Ultramontane had 
talked such nonsense? Judging indeed from his pamph- 
let we are confident that Dr. Doilenger's intellectual 
power has been egregiously overrated; but still neither 
of the two is an idiot. How can we account for so 
stupid a blunder unless we ascribe it to the blinding 
force of prejudice ? " 

Moreover, that such is the Pontiff's meaning is evi- 
dent from the testimony of St. Maximus: " To whom" 
said Maximus, "should we rather refer the explanation 
of the letter ? " (of Honorius). " To the Pontiffs, who 
succeeded Honorius, and whose holy teaching enlight- 
ened all the West,or to those who say what they please 
in Constantinople ? It would be more reasonable 
to rely upon the Roman Pontiffs. Well, they all 
assert that it was the well-known and received design 



192 



THE DESTINY OF MAJST AND 



of Honorius to bury in silence a heresy of which he 
feared the results ; and that he had never intended to 
give judgment in favor of the Monothelites. Pope 
John, the Fourth, wrote as follows to the emperor 
Constantine of happy memory: 1 When Honorius spoke 
of a single will in Jesus Christ, he meant that in the 
person of the Incarnate Word, the humanity had not 
the two contrary wills of the flesh and the spirit, as we 
have since the fall. But he did not mean that the 
divinity had not, in Jesus Christ, its own proper will 
as well as the humanity.' " (Darras' Church History, 
vol. 2, p. 228). The secretary^ who wrote the letter 
for Honorius bears the same testimony as to the mean- 
ing of Honorius. 

I shall now show very briefly that the sixth gen- 
eral council did not condemn Honorius, but simply 
for not using his Pontifical authority to crush this per- 
nicious heresy. 

We will make a few preliminary observations before 
proceeding to consider the question at issue. A gen- 
eral Council must be convened by the Pope ; he 
himself must preside, either in person or through his 
legates : nevertheless the decrees of such a council are 
not binding, and are not to be received as Catholic 
doctrine unless they are approved by the Pope. In- 
stances occur in the history of the church from which 
we learn that some decrees passed by general councils 
were never approved by any of the Popes, but rejected. 
Although the council be general, nevertheless unap- 
proved decrees of such a council are not decrees of a 
general council, for to be decrees of a general council 
they must receive the Papal approbation. 

The sixth general council, that is the council in 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



193 



which Honorius was condemned, understood very 
well that the letter of Pope Agatho to it under whom 
that council was convened, was a dogmatic or an ex 
cathedra letter. In that letter he declares; " that the 
Roman See has never erred, and that it shall never 
err." When this letter w T as read in the council, the 
Bishops exclaimed; " Petrus per os AgatJwnis locatus 
est" " Peter has spoken through the mouth of Aga- 
tho." Now if Honorius, the predecessor of Agatho,. 
had taught heresy how could Agatho say that the See 
of Rome, or the Pope speaking ex cathedra " has never 
erred and will never err?" It is evident from Agatho's 
letter to the emperor that he did not refer to Honorius 
as to 2l heretic j he did expressly refer to that letter of his 
(Honorius,) which the council afterwards condemned, 
as to the letter of a perfectly orthodox man. Agatho 
says in his letter to the Emperor: " My predecessors 
thoroughly instructed as they were in the Lord's doctrine, 
from the time when the Constantinopolitan patriarchs 
endeavored to introduce this heretical novelty into 
Christ's spotless church, have never neglected to 
exhort and entreatingly press them, that they would 
desist from this heretical depravity, were it only by keep- 
ing silence." Now, no other Pope, except Honorius, 
was contented with exorting the heretical patriarchs 
to silence ; nor has any one ever doubted that the con- 
cluding words above quoted refer to that Pontiff. We 
do not, of course,suppose that the passage is ex cathedra 
nevertheless it declares Pope Agatho's conviction that 
Honorius his predecessor was " thoroughly instructed 
in the Lord's doctrine," and not insensible to the 
deadly evil of Monothelism, and that he never taught 
that heresy. But the adversary sa}' s that the sixth 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



general council on reading, among other documents, 
the answer of Honorius to Sergius, Bishop of Constan- 
tinople, rejected it with execration, together with 
the letter of Sergius, to which it was a reply, and an 
other directed to Cyrus, then Bishop of Phasis, and 
added to their anathema against various heretics 
by name, this very solemn condemnation. "We have 
resolved also to anathematize Honorius who was Pope 
of ancient Rome, since we find, from the letter 
addressed by him to Sergius, that confprming to his 
views in all things, he confirmed the impious dogmas." 
They cried out : " To Honorius, the heretic, anathe- 
ma." (Act. 13). 

The question now arises whether the sixth general 
council condemned Honorius as a heretic. The adver- 
sary maintains the affirmative. We maintain, first, 
that Honorius was jiot condemned for having taught 
heresy ex cathedra, for the council does not in the 
slighest degree allude to that. It cannot be doubted 
but that the council was aware that the letter in ques- 
tion, on which the condemnation was grounded, was 
not an ex cathedra document, but a private letter to 
Sergius. To suppose the contrary would be to tax the 
council with gross ignorance of the then recently 
transpired events and also of the nature of a Papal 
ex cathedra document; therefore they did not consider 
the letter of Honorius as an ex cathedra document, and 
consequently did not condemn him for teaching here- 
sy ex cathedra. If Honorius had even been condemned 
for teaching heresy as a private doctor, that would not 
militate against the infallibility of the Pope teaching 
faith and morals ex cathedra. But we, moreover, 
maintain that the council did not condemn Honorius as 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



195 



a heretic in the strict sense of the word nor his letter 
to Sergius as heretical. Though the council says "we 
condemn Sergius,Cyrus,etc, and Honorius Pope of An- 
cient Rome," yet it cannot be supposed that he was con- 
demned in the same category with the ring le'aders of 
the Monothelite heresy, because the letter of Honorius 
to Sergius was read in the council. Moreover the 
council must have known the testimony of St. Maxi- 
mus, of John, the Abbot, who was the private secretary 
of Honorius ; and who wrote that very letter for the 
Pontiff, and of Pope John the Fourth, by which it was 
evident that the letter was entirely orthodox. Besides 
by examining the letter they could easily see that it 
contained the Catholic doctrine. How could they, 
then, condemn Honorius in the sense that he actually 
taught heresy ? If they did, then they portrayed either 
the most deplorable ignorance or an ill-will to the 
Pontiff. They had moreover the letter of Pope Aga- 
tho, from which it was clear that Honorius did not 
teach heresy. To say, then, that the council con- 
demned Honorius for teaching heresy is to accuse the 
assembled Bishops of not knowing the rudiments of 
either Philosophy or Theology, because it is Philoso- 
phically and Theologically evident that the letter is 
orthodox. Again, if the Bishops of the sixth general 
council condemned Honorius as a heretic and his 
writings as heterodox, it is inexplicable how they 
could disregard the testimony, not only of St. Maxi- 
mus and of John the Abbot, as to the innocence of 
Honorius, but the testimony of two Roman Pontiffs, 
of John the Fourth and of Agatho. Agatho says, in 
his letter, as we have seen, that the Roman See has 
never erred and will never err. How could those 



196 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



Bishops exclaim, when the letter of Agatho was read 
in the council, " Peter has spoken through the mouth 
of Agatho." We must, then, suppose that the meaning 
of the council is, that it considered Honorius a heretic 
in this sense, that he neglected to crush the heresy by 
his Pontifical authority, that he neglected to give a 
formal definition with regard to the two wills in 
Christ, and that by imposing silence on both Catho- 
lics and Monothelites and by his own silence and 
passiveness he, indirectly, favored the heresy; but that 
is not teaching heresy, and consequently he was not a 
heretic either as Pope teaching ex cathedi'ci or as a 
private doctor. 

It must furthermore be noticed that in the particular 
acts of the council, there is a marked difference be- 
tween the letter of Honorius and that of Sergius. In 
the thirteenth session the Bishops thus speak: "Having 
read the dogmatic letter written by Sergius . . . likewise 
the letter written back by Honorius, etc." It can not 
be accidental that in the same sentence the epithet 
" dogmatic" is given to the letter of Sergius and not 
given to that of Honorius. It appears further evident 
that the Bishops studiously avoided throughout the 
council to give the epithet dogmatic to Honorius's 
letter. This can not be accounted for otherwise than 
that they knew the real facts in the case and that they 
considered the letter of Honorius as disciplinary or 
hortatory, and not dogmatic. 

If what has been advanced does not satisfy the ad- 
versary, and if he still persists that Honorius was 
condemned as a heretic, I reply that the decrees of a 
general council are only binding and are only to be 
received when they are approved of by the Pope ; but 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CIIUKCH. 197 

no Pope ever approved of any decree condemning Hon- 
orius as a heretic, or his writings as heretical ; there- 
fore, even in the hypothesis of the adversary, Honorius 
is innocent of the charge of heresy. 

When the acts of the sixth general council had ar- 
rived at Rome Agatho was dead ; they were approved 
of by his immediate successor, Leo the Second, in as 
far as they were orthodox. Now let us see in what 
way Pope Leo approved the decree condemning Hon- 
orius. The Pontiff says : "In like manner we anathe- 
matize the inventors of the new error: Theodore 
Bishop of Pharon ; Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, 
Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, overthrowers rather than rulers 
of the Constantinopolitan church; nay and Honorius 
also, who 1 did not labor to preserve in purity this 
Apostolic church by the teaching of Apostolic doctrine 
but by profane betrayal suffered the spotless to be 
polluted; and likewise all who have shared in their 
errors." 

I shall close my little work by giving the comments 
of the Dublin Review on those words of the Pontiff : 
" Every one will here see that the Holy Pontiff draws 
an emphatic distinction between the other anathema- 
tized persons and Honorius, and, consequently, that 
he does not confirm the definition of the Council, in 
any sense inconsistent with this broad distinction. 
They were active, Honorius was passive ; they were 
inventors of the new error, while he permitted the spot- 
less to be defiled. But if Honorius had been himself 
a Monothelite heretic, he would have been no less an 
'inventor ofthe new error' than were Cyrus, Pyrrhus, 
Paul, or Peter ; for it was none of these who originally 
started the heretical idea. Indeed St. Leo abstained 



198 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



pointedly from all language which could be under- 
stood to imply that Honorius had himself fallen into 
heresy. He did not condemn Honorius as a heretic. 
But he proclaimed infallibly the dogmatic fact, that 
Honorius had grievously injured the church by his 
failure in that energetic resistance to heresy, which was 
the highest duty incumbent on a Roman Pontiff." 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



199 



CHAPTER XXIII. . 

THOSE WHO DIE IN GOD'S DISFAVOR, WILL SUFFER 
ETERNAL TORMENTS. 

God has placed us on this earth to comply with the 
conditions and to use the means by which we will be 
enabled to gain the glorious end for which we were 
created; it is therefore of the utmost importance not to 
lose sight of one of the most terrible truths of divine 
revelation, namely, that of the eternal punishment of 
the wicked in the next life. This truth is practically 
ignored by a vast number of men of this»age, as is 
evident from the fact that crime is prevalent over the 
world. I need give no further evidence of 4 this fact 
than the daily criminal records in our journals. Mur- 
ders, robberies and frauds are reported; in fine, crimes 
of almost every description. It would be difficult to 
conceive how the perpetrators can sink into such a 
depth of depravity, unless that they strive to obliter- 
ate from their minds the truth that God will visit 
crime in the next life with adequate punishment. 
There is another class of men, who make open pro- 
fession that there is no place of future punishment, 
that hell is on this earth and will terminate with life. 
It appears very evident that the Universalist doctrine 
is not only most injurious to him who professes it, 
but also dangerous to society. If there be no place of 
punishment in the next life, if all men will be admitted 
to enjoy the beatific vision of God immediately after 



200 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



death, then the motives for practicing virtue are des- 
troyed ; the restraint, which deters men from the 
commission of crime, is removed : such a doctrine 
must necessarily lead to frightful disorders. 

Origen, a Christian writer in the early part of the 
third century, is perhaps claimed as the patron of 
Universalism. He was one of the most distinguished 
men of the age in which he lived; he left us a treasure 
of valuable works ; and by his othordox writings he 
deserved well of the church ; but unfortunately in his 
book on First Principles he went astray. He was the 
author of the doctrine, which holds that, eventually, 
there will be a universal restoration, not only of all 
the damned in hell, but also of the demons. St. Au- 
gustin, writing against those who hold Origen's 
opinion of universal restoration, says in his twenty- 
first book De Civitate Dei: " I must now, I see, enter 
the lists of amicable controversy with those tender- 
hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or 
that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may 
pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall 
suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be 
delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or 
shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In 
respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent 
for he believed that even the devil himself and his 
angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged 
pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered 
from their torments, and associated with the holy an- 
gels. But the church, not without reason, condemned 
him for this and other errors, especially for his theory 
of the ' ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, 
and the interminable transition from one state to an- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



201 



other at fixed periods of ages'; for in this theory he 
lost even the credit of being merciful, by allotting to 
the saints real misery for expiation of their sins, 
and false happiness, which brought them no true and 
secure joy, that is no fearless assurance of eternal 
blessedness." 

From the time of St. Augustin no traces can be 
found of the doctrine of universal restoration ; if any 
were found, who adhered to it, their number must 
have been small and they could not have professed it 
as a sect, but rather as individuals. The doctrine was 
revived in the fifteenth century by some of those who 
left the Catholic Church. The Christian Spectator 
says that in the fifteenth century it was a matter of 
course that the doctrine of the ultimate restoration of 
all fallen intelligences to perfect rectitude and happiness 
should find some to embrace it, and some to argue 
for it. Yet it was held by individuals, separately 
and unconnectedly, rather than by embodied commun- 
ities. -It says: (vol.5, page 270) "The origin of 
Universalism, as a sect, may be traced to England,and 
to the times of the extended religious excitement there 
in connection with the preaching of Whitefield and 
the Wesleys. James Relly, one of Whitefield's preach- 
ers, dissatisfied with the high-toned doctrines of that 
remarkable man, yet probably infected deeply with 
Antinomian views of imputation and atonement, grad- 
ually swerved from the faith and formed a scheme 
peculiar to himself, a scheme which represents the 
doctrine that all men shall be saved, as the grand and 

leading doctrine of Christian revelation Among 

the disciples of Relly was John Marray." 

On page 272, the Christian Spectator says: "About 



202 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



ten years after Marray's arrival in this country, while 
yet Universalism was in its nascent state, Elhanan 
Winchester, a Baptist minister of considerable popular 
reputation, and of no mean talents, came out in Phila- 
delphia, where he was then preaching the doctrine of 
a universal restoration. He drew w T ith him, to a sep- 
arate place of worship, a large part of the congregation 
to which he had been ministering, and appears to have 
excited, for a time, no little atttention. Six years 
afterwards, he suddenly left them and went to England 
where he succeeded in gathering a congregation in 
the metropolis, which is now reckoned among the 
Unitarian churches of that country. Returning to the 
United States in 1794, he was an itinerant till his 
death which occurred at Hartford in 1797. These two 
men (Marray and Winchester) Universalism acknowl- 
edges as its founders and heads." 

It is true that Marray and Winchester held that 
punishment is reserved for the wicked after death ; but 
they maintained that it is temporal and not eternal. 
Although they disagreed in many points, yet their 
views with regard to universal restoration were the 
same. It is not necessary to show up their different 
conflicting opinions, as they agree in the main ques- 
tion at issue. Before assigning the reasons why those 
who depart this life, enemies of God, should suffer 
eternal punishment, it is well to bear in mind that all 
nations in all ages believed that there was punishment 
reserved for the wicked in the next life, and the belief 
that the punishment is eternal was pretty generally 
entertained by them. 

Virgil sa}'s : " In such terms he prayed, and held 
the altar, when thus the prophetess began to speak: 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



203 



Offspring of the gods, thou Trojan son of Anchises, 
easy is the path that leads down to hell ; grim Pluto's 
gate stands open night and day; but to retrace one's 
steps, and escape to the upper regions, this is a work, 
this a task." In another place he says : " iEneas on 
a sudden looks back, and under a rock on the left sees 
vast prisons inclosed with a triple wall, which Tartar- 
ean Phlegethon's rapid flood environs with torrents 
of flame, and whirls roaring rocks along. Fronting is 
a huge gate, with columns of solid adamant, that no 
strength of men, nor the gods themselves, can with 
steel demolish. An iron tower rises aloft; and there 
wakeful Tisiphone, with her bloody robe tucked up 
around her, sits to watch the vestibule night and day. 
Hence groans are heard ; the cruel lashes resound; the 
grating too of iron, and clank of dragging chains. 
.-Eneas stopped short, and starting listened to the din. 
What scenes of guilt are these ? O virgin, say; or 
with what pains are they chastised ? What hideous 
yelling ascends to the skies ? Then, thus the prophet- 
ess began: Renowned leader of the Trojans, no holy 
person is allowed to tread the accursed threshold ; but 
Hecate when she sets me over the groves of Avernus, 
herself taught me the punishment appointed by the 
gods, and led me through every part. Cretan Rhad- 
amanthus possesses these most ruthless realms; 
examines and punishes frauds ; and forces every one' 
to confess what crimes committed in the upper world 
he left unatoned till the late hour of death, hugging 
himself in secret crime of no avail. Forthwith aveng- 
ing Tisiphone, armed with her whip, scourges the 
guilty with cruel insult, and in her left hand shaking 



204: 



THE DESTJNY OF MAN AND 



over them grim snakes, calls the fierce troops of her 
sister Furies." (iEneid, book 6). 

Pluto, called also IJades and Aidaneous, as well as 
Orcus and Dis, was the brother of Jupiter and Nep- 
tune, and lord of the lower world, or the abode of the 
dead. He is described as being inexorable and deaf to 
supplication — for from his realms there is no return— 
and an object of aversion and hatred to both gods and 
men. (Homer's Iliad, 9 — 1^8, seq). Anthon's Classic- 
al Dictionary, heading Pluto: "Tartarus, a place of 
punishment in the lower world. According to the 
Iliad, 8, 16, and Hesiod, this world is a hollow globe, 
divided into two equal portions by the flat disk of the 
earth. The external shell of this globe is called by 
the poets brazen and iron, probably only to express 
its solidity. The upper hemisphere was called heaven, 
the lower is called Tartarus. Hesiod speaking of the 
length of the diameter of hollow sphere says : ' It 
w r ould take nine days for an anvil to fall from Heaven 
to earth ; and an equal space of time would be occu- 
pied by its fall from the earth to the bottom of Tartar- 
us/" Those who wish to see more on this subject can 
consult Anthon's Classical Dictionary. 

But it is alleged that these are inventions of the 
poets to amuse their readers, that they were written 
for the entertainment of the stage, that even the 
"pagans themselves did not believe what is asserted in 
their writings. Poets and writers of fiction write 
generally to please their readers ; hence they abstain 
from writing what would not only excite displeasure, 
but also from what would create gloominess and ter- 
ror in the mind. Now it is apparent that there cannot 
be a more gloomy and terrific subject than their Tar- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



tarus or hell ; yet they give a most dreadful descrip- 
tion of those who suffer in the lower world. It appears 
evident, then, that they expressed the notion, which 
the people in general entertained concerning hades or 
hell. Besides, not only the poets, but other writers 
entertained the same views. The pagan Celsus says : 
u The Christians are right in thinking that those who 
lead holy lives wil be rewarded after death and that 
the wicked will suffer eternal punishment. This senti- 
ment, however, is common to them with all the world.'* 
(Celsus apud Origen, lib. 8). The pagan orator, 
Marcius Porcius Cato, in opposing the views of Caesar, 
said in the Senate: " Caius Caesar, a short time ago,, 
spoke in fair and elegant language, before this assem- 
bly, on the subject of life and death ; considering as 
false, I suppose, what is told of the dead; that the bad 
going a different way from the good, inhabit places, 
gloomy, desolate, dreary, and full of horror." (Sallust,. 
Conspiracy of Catiline, chapter 52). 

Perrone says, in his Theology, Article Third De 
Inferno, that it is not difficult to show that the whole 
human race believed in eternal punishment of the 
wicked, in the next life, that learned men have shown 
this concerning different nations. Bartoloccius, who 
wrote about the Hebrews, shows that they believed in 
eternal punishment of the wicked after death; (1). 
Marraccius, that this is the belief of the Mohammedans; 
(2). Gutherus, that it was the belief of the Greek 
poets and Philosophers; (3). Montfauconius, that it 

(1) Biblioth rabbiuic in diss, de inferno. (2) In Ref ut. Alcorani. Conf. 
etiam Hottenqorvm* 1. 1 H. eccl. (3) Apud Grasrium, t. 12, Theus. an- 
tiquit. Rom. Lugd. Batav. 1699, in Diss, de Jure manium p. 1077. (4) ~T~ 
5. Antiq. iliustrat., Paris 1799 p. 1, c 7. descriptio enfernalium supplicio- 
rum, etc. 



206 



THE DESTINY OF MAX AXD 



was the belief of the Romans; (4). Zendavesta, Tacitus 
and Diodorus, that it was the belief of the Chaldeans, 
Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians (5). 

The Jews believed that the Old Testament is the 
Word of God. From those sacred pages we can col- 
lect what their belief was with regard to eternal 
punishment of the wicked. The Prophet, speaking of 
the punishment reserved for the wicked in the next 
life, says: "And the unicorns shall go down with them 
and the bulls with the mighty ; their land shall be 
soaked with blood, and their ground with the fat of 
fat ones. For it is the day of the vengeance of the 
Lord, the year of recompense of the judgment of 
Sion. And the streams thereof shall be turned into 
pitch, and the ground thereof into brimstone; and the 
land thereof shall become burning pitch. Night and 
day it shall not be quenched ; the smoke thereof shall 
go up forever ; from generation to generation it shall 
lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever." 
(Isaias chap 34, 7, and following verses). Again Isaias 
says: " The sinners in Sion are afraid ; trembling hath 
seized upon the hypocrites. Which of you can dwell 
with devouring fire ? which of you shall dwell with 
everlasting burnings?" (Isaias chap 33 verse 14). 

Judith says: " Woe be to the nation that riseth up 
against my people ; for the Lord Almighty will take 
revenge on them ; in the day of judgment He will visit 
them. For he will give fire and worms into their 
flesh, that they may burn and may feel forever." (Ju- 
dith chap 16, 30 and 21 verses). Again, it is written, 

There are spirits that are created for vengeance, and 
in their fury they lay on grievous torments; in the time 
ot destruction they shall pour out their forces; and they 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



207 



shall appease the wrath of Him that made them. Fire, 
hail, famine and death, all these were created for ven- 
geance. The teeth of beasts, and scorpions and ser- 
pents, and the sword taking vengeance upon the 
ungodly unto destruction." (Ecclesiasticus chap 39 
verse 33 and following). 

The passages quoted from the Old Testament are 
amply sufficient to show that God's people of old be- 
lieved in the eternal punishment of the wicked after 
death ; though many more might be cited. It must 
be obvious to every inquiring mind that there is a great 
similarity between the doctrine of the Hebrews and 
that of all the pagan nations concerning hell, for they 
both, at least the pagans in general, believed that the 
wicked will be eternal^ punished after death. Now 
it must be apparent that the pagans must have received 
their original notions of hell from the people of God. 
There is, then, in the pagan doctrine of hell a glimpse 
of primitive revelation which remained uneffaced 
during the course of centuries ; and the law, which 
proclaims that God will reward the good and punish 
the wicked, still remained written in their hearts ; and 
gave them a glimmering light amid the darkness and 
superstition of paganism. The idea that there is no 
eternal punishment for the wicked after death has its 
origin in the mistaken notion of the attributes of God's 
justice and mercy. Whatever God created, He cre- 
ated for an end, because He is the Infinite Intelligence. 
The end of all creation is the goodness of God. We 
find in the physical creation an admirable order ; all 
things are governed by fixed and most wise laws. 
Provision is made for all things to gain their end. 
Now the creative act of God is not less required for 



208 



THE DESTINY OF MAN JAND 



the preservation of things than the act which brought 
them into existence, for if God would withdraw His 
creative act, all things would fall back into their orig- 
inal nothingness. 

But as God created all things for an end, His jus- 
tice requires that He must furnish the means to gain 
that end ; His justice, furthermore, requires that virtue 
must be duly rewarded, and crime visited with ade- 
quate punishment. God created man with free 
will; his end is the highest in the visible creation; he 
is destined to enjoy God for all eternity in heaven. 
But as God created man for this glorious end, He was 
bound by His justice, before the fall of the human 
race, to give him the means to gain his destiny. When 
man, by an act of his free will, fell from grace by 
transgressing God's law in paradise, he deprived him- 
self of means destined to lead him to his supernatural 
end; he contracted a debt with the Divine Justice ; an 
infinite satisfaction was required to liquidate it. Man, 
being finite, could not satisfy the infinite justice of God. 
God the Son assumed human nature; and by His suffer- 
ing and death made full satisfaction for the sins of all 
men. In the incarnation of the Son of God, and i n His 
redemption of the human race, we have sources from 
which to gather some idea of God's mercy. When God 
heals the wounds inflicted by sin on our souls ; when 
He assists us by the help of His grace to overcome the 
obstacles and the enemies of our salvation, and when 
He gives the means to gain our end He exercises His 
mercy towards us. St. Thomas says: " Ad cujus 
evideHttatn consider andum est quod miser icors dicitur aliquis, 
quasi habens miserum cor, quid scilicet afficitur ex" miseria 
alterius per tristitiam, ac si esset ejus propria miseria ; 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 209 



et ex hoc sequitur quod operetur ad depelendam mis- 
eriam alterius, sicut miseriatn propriam ; et hie est 
misericordiae effectus. Tristari ergo de miseria alter- 
ius non competit Deo; sed repellere miseriam alterius 
hoc maxime ei competit, ut per miseriam quemcumque 
defectum intelligamus. Defectusautem non tolluntur 
nisi per alicujus bonitatis perfectionem. Prima autem 
origo bonitatis Deus est. 

Sed considerandum est quod elargiri perfectiones 
rebus pertinet quidem et ad bonitatem divinam, et ad 
justitiam, et ad liberalitatem, et misericordiam, tamen 
secundum aliam et aliam rationem. Communicatio 
enim perfectionum absolute considerata pertinet ad 
bonitatem, ut supra ostensum est. Sed in quantum 
perfectiones rebus a Deo dantur secundum earum pro- 
portionem, pertinet ad justitiam, ut dictum est supra. 
In quantum vero non attribuit rebus perfectiones 
propter utilitatem suam, sed solum bonitatem, pertinet 
ad liberalitatem. In quantum vero perfectiones datae 
rebus a Deo omnem defectum expellunt, pertinet ad 
misericordiam. 

" For the evidence of this, we must consider that one 
is called merciful, who has as it were a heart capable 
of pity, .because in truth he is affected with grief on 
account of the misery of another as if it were his own ; 
and from this it follows that he strives to remove 
another's misery as if it were his own ; and this is the 
effect of mercy. To be affected with grief on account 
of the misery of another does not belong to God ; but 
to remove the misery of another becomes Him in the 
highest degree, as by misery we may understand defect 
of whatever kind. But defects are not taken away 
unless by the perfection of some goodness; but the 



210 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



first origin of goodness belongs to God. But we must 
consider that to bestow perfections to things, apper- 
tains, indeed, to the goodness, justice, liberality and 
mercy of God, nevertheless in different ways. For 
the conferring of perfections, absolutely considered, 
belongs to the Divine Goodness, as has been shown 
above. But, inasmuch as perfections are given by 
God to things according to their proportion, that ap- 
pertains to His justice, as has been said above. But 
inasmuch as • He does not give perfections to things 
on account of His own benefit, but on account of His 
goodness, that belongs to His liberality. But inas- 
much as perfections given by God to things remove 
every defect, that appertains to His mercy." St. Thomas, 
Summcz Theologicce, Pars Prima Qucest. XXI, Art. III. 

From what the Angelic Doctor teaches, we can see 
that God does not exercise His mercy on those who 
are in heaven. The beatitude of the inhabitants of 
heaven is the effect of the mercy of God. The exer- 
cise of mercy is to remove the miseries of another. 
"But," as the holy Doctor says,"inasmuch as perfections 
given by God to things to remove defects, that apper- 
tains to His mercy." Human misery is then a defect; but 
in those who are in heaven there can be no defect or 
misery, because they must be perfected before they can 
enter that happy abode ; it follows, then, that there 
can be no exercise of mercy in heaven. God does .not 
exercise His mercy in hell, because the damned are in 
termino, that is, they are at the end of their journey ; 
and by an act of their free will, they rebelled against 
God in via, that is on their journey toward eternity, and 
died in the state of mortal sin or rebellion. God exer- 
cises His mercy on the poor suffering souls in purga- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



211 



tory ; but they are as yet viatoresj heaven is their end 
to which they have not as yet arrived. Throughout the 
entire physical creation we behold an order by which 
things are sustained and brought to their end. If the 
order is destroyed, then the means of subsistence are 
also taken away. The tree, for instance, receives its 
means of subsistence from the earth; if its parts are 
separated, or if it be cut down it will die, for the order 
of its subsistence no longer exists. That order cannot 
be restored unless by a miracle ; but God does not 
work a miracle, and, consequently, does not restore the 
order by which it can subsist. If a man destroy the 
order of his sight, God does not restore it ; blindness 
must remain permanent ; if he take away his own life 
he destroys the order of his life, and, consequently, 
must remain in the state of death ; if he cast himself 
in a deep well he cannot escape without the aid of 
others. 

There must be supernatural relations between God 
and man in order that man may gain his supernatural 
end; if man sever those relations, or if he destroy the 
order of his salvation he places himself in a state of 
damnation from which he cannot rise without the 
supernatural aid of God. We know this from revela- 
tion, for our Saviour says : u No man can come to me, 
except the Father, who has sent me, draw him." (St. John 
ch. 6 v. 44). Again He says: " I am the vine, you 
the branches ; he that abideth in Me and I in him, the 
same beareth much fruit ; for without Me you can do 
nothing." (St. John ch. 15 v. 5). When the super- 
natural relations are severed in this life they can only 
be restored by God's grace. God gives to each one 
sufficient grace to be saved ; but the free-will of man 



212 



THE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



must co-operate with the grace and carry it into effect. 
Though God offers the grace and calls on the trans- 
gressor to return to Him, He nevertheless ]does not 
force him; man is, therefore, free to make his election, 
either of happiness or of misery hereafter. As eternal 
punishment is the effect of mortal sin, we must know 
that in mortal sin two things are to be viewed ; the 
first is, that he who commits it turns away from God 
his last end; the second is, he, by rejecting God, places 
his last end in the creature. A rebellion is involved 
against God in such an act; and its malice is in some 
respect infinite, for St. Thomas says : " In peccato au- 
tem duo sunt ; quorum unum est aversio ab incommu- 
tabili bono, quod est infinitum; unde ex hac parte 
peccatum est infinitum ; aliud quod est in peccato, est 
inordinata conversio ad commutabile bonum, turn 
quid ipsum bonum commutabile est finitum, turn etiam 
quid ipsa conversio est finita; nonenim possunt esse 
actus creaturas infiniti." " But there are two things 
in sin ; the one is the turning away from the Un- 
changeable Good, which is infinite; whence in this 
respect sin is infinite; the other which is in sin, is 
the inordinate . turning over to the changeable good, 
and in this respect sin is finite; then because the 
changeable good itself is finite, then also the turning 
over itself is finite; for the acts of the creature cannot be 
infinite." The holy doctor does not mean that mortal 
sin is simpliciter infinitum, sed secundum quid, as he ex- 
presses it in another place, where he says: " Peccatum 
habct quondam infinitatcm malitioz ex infinitate Divince 
Majestatis." Hence mortal sin is infinite inasmuch 
as it is an offence and rebellion against the Divine 
Majesty which is infinite. By mortal sin the supernat- 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHUECH. 



213 



ural relations between God and the sinner are severed, 
the order necessary to lead to eternal life is destroyed 
by the malice of the sinner. The justice of God re- 
quires that the transgressor must be rejected as long 
as he remains in this state of rebellion. It is true that 
the sinner can change his will while he is in life; and 
God, in many places of the Holy Scriptures, calls upon 
him to return. But as long as mortal sin remains in 
the soul so long does its malice and rebellion remain 
against the order established by God to lead man to 
his supernatural end. He who departs this life in 
mortal sin retains its malice and rebellion for all 
eternity against the Divine Majesty. If he could em- 
brace God in hell with love and contrition for his 
sins, the supernatural relations between God and him- 
self would be restored, and the order necessary to lead 
him to a happy eternity would be reproduced ; but 
this will never take place. Even in this life, he, who 
rejects God by mortal sin, cannot rise from that state 
without the supernatural aid of God ; but God is not 
bound by His mercy to give such aid to the damned, 
because by the perversion of their will they rebelled 
against Him. His infinite justice requires that their 
rebellion must be punished as long as it w T ill continue, 
but it will continue for all eternity. Without the aid 
of God's grace they cannot rectify the perversity of 
their will ; but as they are in ta-miiio, at the end of 
their journey, grace is not given, and consequently 
there can be no forgiveness. "Out of hell there is 
no redemption." " If the tree fall to the south or to 
the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there it 
shall be." (Eccl. ch. n, v. 3). These words refer to 
the two eternal states of man ; if he die in grace, he 



214 



TFIE DESTINY OF MAN AND 



will be in a state of eternal bliss, if in malice lie will 
be in a state of eternal misery! Our Saviour says ; 
" And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son 
of Man, it shall be forgiven him ; but he that shall 
speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven 
him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." 
(St. Mathew ph. 12 v. 32). This sin of which our 
Saviour speaks is final impenitence. Though the 
damned committed many mortal sins ; they all died 
impenitent and this sealed their eternal doom. It is 
evident then that in hell there is no forgiveness, and 
consequently no redemption from it. 

Again, punishment must be proportionate to the 
dignity of the person offended; hence he who strikes 
the supreme official of the state, and treats him with 
contempt, is guilty of a greater crime and merits 
severer punishment than he who strikes and despises 
a private individual ; but he who sins mortally offends 
God; he violates the divine law, and gives the honor 
due to the Creator to the creature, in which he places 
his last end. Now God is an infinite being, who is 
offended by His own creature. The transgressor con- 
tracts a debt with the Divine justice; no finite satis- 
faction can liquidate it; if he departs this life in mortal 
sin, in rebellion against God, Infinite justice demands 
eternal punishment. As he who dies in the state of 
mortal sin cannot suffer infinite punishment in in- 
tensity, because he is a finite being, his punishment 
must then be of infinite duration. Moreover the pun- 
ishment cannot be measured with the time employed 
in the commission of crime, for in that hypothesis the 
worst crimes would scarcely merit any punishment. 
A man commits murder, or some other enormous 



THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



215 



crime, in a few moments; if the gravity of his crime 
were to be measured with the time spent in its com- 
mission, then his punishment would also be of brief 
duration ; yet the order of justice requires that he be 
removed from society, either by death, perpetual 
imprisonment or exile. By death he is for ever re- 
moved from society, by perpetual imprisonment or 
exile during the whole period of his life ; if he could 
live forever, he would be forever excluded from 
society. 

Although the offence against God was perpetrated 
in a few moments, nevertheless the transgressor, by 
an act of his free will, rejected- the right and title to a 
happy eternity, and chose eternal misery, and having 
died in his malice he is justly rejected by God and 
justly separated, for all eternity, from the society of 
the Blessed. 

This truth is still further attested by many passages 
of the New Testament. Our Saviour says : " But he 
that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall 
never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an ever- 
lasting sin." (Mark, chap. 3, v. 29). This shows 
clearly that the sins of the reprobate are retained for 
all eternity, and that he must endure eternal punish- 
ment. Our Saviour, speaking of the destiny of the 
just and the wicked, says: "And these shall go into ever- 
lasting punishment, but the just into life everlasting." 
(St. Matthew, chap. 25, v. 46). From this it is evident 
that the punishment of the wicked shall last as long 
as the happiness of the just continues; but the happiness 
of the just will continue for all eternity; this is ad- 
mitted by the Universalist; therefore the punishment 
of the wicked will continue for all eternity. St. John 



216 



THE DESTINY OF MA.N AND 



says in his Apocalypse: " And fire came down from 
God out of heaven and devoured them ; and the devil, 
who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and 
brimstone, where both the beast and the false prophet 
shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." 
(chap. 20, verses 9, 10). 

Many more texts might be produced but those al- 
ready cited will suffice. It is needless to show the 
belief of the church, for every one who is acquainted 
with her teaching knows that she has believed and 
taught this doctrine in all times and to all nations. As 
two eternities are before us, one of happiness and the 
other of misery ; if we act wisely we will strive to 
comply with all God's conditions to arrive at the hap- 
py one, and avoid the other of endless woe. This we 
can do while in life ; but after death the gates of mercy 
will be closed; and if we have the misfortune to enter 
into an eternity of misery we will be deprived of God, 
our last end, and of the society of the blessed for ever 
and ever. 

THE END. 



i^yX lit / 



„!S ARY 0F CONGRESS 



021 898 954 8 



